Hi Markus,
I feel deeply embarrassed now ... the sanitizer indeed found a spot
where I relied on (undefined) semantics of signed integer overflow.
Changing the offending "int" to "unsigned" fixed the problem.
Thanks a lot for the tip - I will definitely use the sanitizers more
often in the future
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Martin Reinecke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At some point in May 2016 there was a patch to the gcc trunk which
> caused one of my numerical codes to give incorrect results when compiled
> with this gcc version. This may of course be caused by some undefined
> behavior I'm unknowingly in
On 2016.11.17 at 10:49 +0100, Martin Reinecke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At some point in May 2016 there was a patch to the gcc trunk which
> caused one of my numerical codes to give incorrect results when compiled
> with this gcc version. This may of course be caused by some undefined
> behavior I'm unknow
Hi,
At some point in May 2016 there was a patch to the gcc trunk which
caused one of my numerical codes to give incorrect results when compiled
with this gcc version. This may of course be caused by some undefined
behavior I'm unknowingly invoking in the code, or it may be a code
generation bug in
