Re: C++ vs. -ftrivial-auto-var-init= vs. vacuous initialization & jumps

2025-09-03 Thread Qing Zhao via Gcc
> On Sep 3, 2025, at 12:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 03:23:39PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 3, 2025, at 09:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 09:35:04PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: > I think I've mentioned it earlier, but -ftrivial-

Re: C++ vs. -ftrivial-auto-var-init= vs. vacuous initialization & jumps

2025-09-03 Thread Qing Zhao via Gcc
> On Sep 3, 2025, at 09:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 09:35:04PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: >>> I think I've mentioned it earlier, but -ftrivial-auto-var-init= doesn't >>> work at all for C++. >> You mean that -ftrivial-auto-var-init hasn’t work at all for C++’s auto >> var

Re: C++ vs. -ftrivial-auto-var-init=

2025-09-02 Thread Qing Zhao via Gcc
Hi, > On Sep 1, 2025, at 05:19, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > I think I've mentioned it earlier, but -ftrivial-auto-var-init= doesn't > work at all for C++. You mean that -ftrivial-auto-var-init hasn’t work at all for C++’s auto variables with non-trivial ctors? > With C++26 P2795R5 bein

Re: Handling C2Y zero-length operations on null pointers

2024-11-13 Thread Qing Zhao via Gcc
> On Nov 12, 2024, at 01:51, Martin Uecker wrote: > > Am Montag, dem 07.10.2024 um 15:14 + schrieb Qing Zhao: >> >>> On Oct 7, 2024, at 10:13, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 12:42:24AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Joseph Myers: > The real qu

Re: Handling C2Y zero-length operations on null pointers

2024-10-07 Thread Qing Zhao via Gcc
> On Oct 7, 2024, at 11:22, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 03:14:22PM +, Qing Zhao wrote: >>> Consider the qsort case. My understanding was that the paper is making >>> typedef int (*cmpfn) (const void *, const void *); >>> qsort (NULL, 0, 1, (cmpfn) NULL); >>> valid (but

Re: Handling C2Y zero-length operations on null pointers

2024-10-07 Thread Qing Zhao via Gcc
> On Oct 7, 2024, at 10:13, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 12:42:24AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Joseph Myers: >> >>> The real question is how to achieve optimal warnings in the absence of the >>> attribute. Should we have a variant of the nonnull attribute t

Re: Should GCC warn about sizeof(flexible_struct)?

2023-08-14 Thread Qing Zhao via Gcc
> On Aug 14, 2023, at 2:41 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 8:30 PM Alejandro Colomar via Gcc > wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> Structures with flexible array members have restrictions about being >> used in arrays or within other structures, as the size of the enclosing

Questions on parallel processing and multi-threading support in GCC's profiling collection

2023-07-17 Thread Qing Zhao via Gcc
Hi, Jan, I did a little search online and also into GCC’s documentation, and found the following several options to support parallel processing and multi-threading during profiling collection: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-10.5.0/gcc/Instrumentation-Options.html -fprofile-dir=path and

Re: [wish] Flexible array members in unions

2023-05-18 Thread Qing Zhao via Gcc
> On May 18, 2023, at 12:25 PM, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote: > > > >> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:14 PM Kees Cook via Gcc wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 08:53:52PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: On Thu, 11 May 2023, Kees Cook via Gcc wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 06:29:

Re: [wish] Flexible array members in unions

2023-05-15 Thread Qing Zhao via Gcc
> On May 12, 2023, at 2:16 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:14 PM Kees Cook via Gcc wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 08:53:52PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: >>> On Thu, 11 May 2023, Kees Cook via Gcc wrote: >>> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 06:29:10PM +0200,