On 11/05/2023 04:09, Po Lu via Gcc wrote:
jwakely@gmail.com (Jonathan Wakely) writes:
So let's do it. Let's write a statement saying that the GCC developers
consider software security to be of increasing importance, and that we
consider it irresponsible to default to accepting invalid const
On 12/05/2023 04:08, Po Lu via Gcc wrote:
Eli Schwartz writes:
Because that's exactly what is going on here. Features that were valid
C89 code are being used in a GNU99 or GNU11 code file, despite that
***not*** being valid GNU99 or GNU11 code.
How GCC currently behaves defines what is va
On 12/05/2023 08:16, 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, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
On 5/1
On 26/05/2023 17:49, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
I don't like to argue with idiots: they beat me with experience!
Stefan
Stefan, you are clearly not happy about the /free/ compiler you are
using, and its /free/ documentation (which, despite its flaws, is better
than I have seen for most other co
On 06/06/2023 02:09, Dave Blanchard wrote:
If this guy's threads are such a terrible waste of your time, how
about employing your email client's filters to ignore his posts (and
mine too) and fuck off?
You apparently appreciate Stefan's posts, but burst a blood vessel when
reading anyone els
On 06/06/2023 14:53, Paul Smith wrote:
On Tue, 2023-06-06 at 16:36 +0800, Julian Waters via Gcc wrote:
Sorry for my outburst, to the rest of this list. I can no longer stay
silent and watch these little shits bully people who are too kind to
fire back with the same kind of venom in their words.
On 28/06/2023 10:35, Rafał Pietrak via Gcc wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
W dniu 28.06.2023 o 09:31, Jonathan Wakely pisze:
If you use a C++ library type for your pointers the syntax above
doesn't need to change, and the fancy pointer type can be implemented
portable, with customisation for targets w
On 03/07/2023 18:42, Rafał Pietrak via Gcc wrote:
Hi Ian,
W dniu 3.07.2023 o 17:07, Ian Lance Taylor pisze:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 11:21 PM Rafał Pietrak via Gcc
wrote:
[]
I was thinking about that, and it doesn't look as requiring that deep
rewrites. ABI spec, that could accomodat
On 04/07/2023 16:20, Rafał Pietrak wrote:
W dniu 3.07.2023 o 18:29, Rafał Pietrak pisze:
Hi David,
[--]
4. It is worth taking a step back, and thinking about how you would
like to use these pointers. It is likely that you would be better
thinking in terms of an array, rather t
On 04/07/2023 16:46, Rafał Pietrak wrote:
Hi,
W dniu 4.07.2023 o 14:38, David Brown pisze:
[-]
A key difference is that using 32-bit pointers on an x86 is enough
address space for a large majority of use-cases, while even on the
smallest small ARM microcontroller, 16-bit is not enough
On 05/07/2023 10:05, Rafał Pietrak via Gcc wrote:
Hi,
W dniu 5.07.2023 o 09:29, Martin Uecker pisze:
Am Mittwoch, dem 05.07.2023 um 07:26 +0200 schrieb Rafał Pietrak:
[---]
And if it's so ... there is no mention of how does it show up for
"simple user" of the GCC (instead of the use of th
On 05/07/2023 11:25, Martin Uecker wrote:
Am Mittwoch, dem 05.07.2023 um 11:11 +0200 schrieb David Brown:
On 05/07/2023 10:05, Rafał Pietrak via Gcc wrote:
...
In my personal opinion (which you are all free to disregard), named
address spaces were an interesting idea that failed. I was
On 05/07/2023 11:42, Rafał Pietrak via Gcc wrote:
Hi,
W dniu 5.07.2023 o 11:11, David Brown pisze:
On 05/07/2023 10:05, Rafał Pietrak via Gcc wrote:
[---]
I am not sure if you are clear about this, but the address space
definition macros here are for use in the source code for the
On 05/07/2023 14:25, Rafał Pietrak wrote:
Hi,
W dniu 5.07.2023 o 13:55, David Brown pisze:
On 05/07/2023 11:42, Rafał Pietrak via Gcc wrote:
[--]
So your current objections to named spaces ... are in fact in favor
of them. Isn't it so?
Not really, no - I would rathe
On 05/07/2023 15:29, Rafał Pietrak wrote:
Hi,
W dniu 5.07.2023 o 14:57, David Brown pisze:
[]
My objection to named address spaces stem from two points:
1. They are compiler implementations, not user code (or library code),
which means development is inevitably much slower and
On 05/07/2023 18:13, Rafał Pietrak via Gcc wrote:
Hi,
W dniu 5.07.2023 o 16:45, David Brown pisze:
On 05/07/2023 15:29, Rafał Pietrak wrote:
[---]
OK. I don't see a problem here, but I admit that mixing semantics
often lead to problems.
I think it also allows b
On 06/07/2023 09:00, Rafał Pietrak via Gcc wrote:
Hi,
W dniu 5.07.2023 o 19:39, David Brown pisze:
[--]
I'm not sure what this means? At compile time, you only have
literals, so what's missing?
The compiler knows a lot more than just literal values at compile time
On 07/07/2023 00:27, André Albergaria Coelho via Gcc wrote:
What if the user chooses in own ABI, say specifying a config file like
My abi
" Parameters = pushed in stack"
say
gcc -abi "My abi" some.c -o some
what would be the problems of specifying an ABI?? would that improve the
usage of u
On 12/07/2023 14:43, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 at 10:25, Vishal B Patil via Gcc wrote:
Hi Team,
Any updates ?
You're not going to get any useful answers.
You asked "Please share the costs and time as well." Costs for what? From whom?
GCC is an open-source project
On 10/10/2023 18:30, Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote:
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 7:30 AM Florian Weimer via Gcc
wrote:
Are these code fragments valid C89 code?
int i1 = 1;
char *p1 = i;
char c;
char *p2 = &c;
int i2 = p2;
Or can we generate errors for them even with -std=gnu89?
(It
On 11/10/2023 10:10, Florian Weimer wrote:
* David Brown:
So IMHO (and as I am not a code contributor to GCC, my opinion really
is humble) it is better to be stricter than permissive, even in old
standards. It is particularly important for "-std=c89", while
"-std=gnu89&quo
On 11/10/2023 12:17, Florian Weimer wrote:
* David Brown:
On 11/10/2023 10:10, Florian Weimer wrote:
* David Brown:
So IMHO (and as I am not a code contributor to GCC, my opinion really
is humble) it is better to be stricter than permissive, even in old
standards. It is particularly
On 02/11/2023 00:28, peter0x44 via Gcc wrote:
On 2023-11-01 23:13, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 1 Nov 2023, peter0x44 via Gcc wrote:
Why is #define used instead of typedef? I can't imagine how this could
possibly break any existing code.
That's how stdbool.h is specified up to C17. In C23,
Hi,
First, please ignore everything Dave Blanchard writes. I don't know
why, but he likes to post angry, rude and unhelpful messages to this list.
Secondly, this is the wrong list. gcc-help would be the correct list,
as you are asking for help with gcc. This list is for discussions on
the
On 18/03/2024 14:54, Andreas Schwab via Gcc wrote:
On Mär 18 2024, David Brown wrote:
I think it would be possible to have an implementation where "signed
char" was 8-bit two's complement except that 0x80 would be a trap
representation rather than -128.
signed char cannot ha
On 30/05/2024 04:26, Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 7:13 PM 赵海峰 via Gcc wrote:
Dear Sir/Madam,
We found that running on intel SPR UnixBench compiled with gcc 10.3 performs
worse than with gcc 8.5 for dhry2reg benchmark.
I found it related with -fcommon option which i
On 04/06/2024 19:43, Michael Matz via Gcc wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024, Richard Biener wrote:
A pragmatic solution might be a new target hook, indicating a specified
builtin is not to be folded into an open-coded form.
Well, that's what the mechanism behind -fno-builtin-foobar is suppose
On 11/07/2024 11:58, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
Am Donnerstag, dem 11.07.2024 um 11:35 +0200 schrieb Alejandro Colomar via Gcc:
Hi,
I was wondering how we could extend attributes such as gnu::access() to
apply it to pointees too. Currently, there's no way to specify the
access mode of a poi
On 24/10/2024 16:35, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 at 15:00, Mateusz Guzik via Gcc wrote:
I understand the stock behavior of pilling variables on may happen to
improve cache usage.
However, in a multicore setting it is a never-ending source of
unintentionally showing up a
On 12/11/2024 15:29, Sad Clouds via Gcc wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 21:14:43 + (UTC)
Joseph Myers wrote:
I don't think this has anything to do with whether one operand of the
comparison is a constant. It's still the case when comparing with 0.0
that it's OK if your algorithm is designed su
On 23/09/2024 22:09, Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote:
While working on the review from
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-September/663418.html .
I noticed that there are places which use `side effects` and some use
`side-effects`. I assume we should follow a similar pattern as
`back-end`
On 27/09/2024 10:13, Dennis Luehring via Gcc wrote:
Am 27.09.2024 um 09:56 schrieb Jonathan Wakely:
On Fri, 27 Sept 2024, 08:39 Dennis Luehring, wrote:
> Am 27.09.2024 um 09:34 schrieb Jonathan Wakely:
>
>
> > They might not have
> > been using the original gcc-3.4.0 sources.
>
>
> seems to be
On 28/11/2024 12:18, Aaron Peter Bachmann via Gcc wrote:
Two suggestions for GCC beginners projects
I watched some of the 2024 Gnu Cauldron videos. The question of what
could be a suitable project for a beginner came up. I have two suggestions:
1. Add a warning when users use reserved or p
On 13/11/2024 22:34, James K. Lowden wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 10:04:59 +0100
David Brown via Gcc wrote:
No. This is - or at least appears to be - missing critical thinking.
You are explaining this to someone who designed research databases and
who implemented quantitative models that ran
On 01/12/2024 23:55, Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Gcc wrote:
Some modern CPU's now have control flow enforcement. Here's how it
works on Intel CPU's:
"The shadow stack stores a copy of the return address of each CALL. On
a RET, the processor checks if the return address stored in the normal
st
On 12/11/2024 22:44, James K. Lowden wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 18:12:50 +0100
David Brown via Gcc wrote:
Under what circumstances would you have code that :
...
d) Would be perfectly happy with "x" having the value 2.225e-307 (or
perhaps a little larger) and doing the division
301 - 336 of 336 matches
Mail list logo
