http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28105
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28105
--- Comment #11 from Janne Blomqvist 2010-12-15
17:15:31 UTC ---
Author: jb
Date: Wed Dec 15 17:15:25 2010
New Revision: 167860
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167860
Log:
PR 28105 Remove size<0 checks before calling malloc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28105
--- Comment #10 from Joost VandeVondele
2010-12-02 07:35:03 UTC ---
BTW, there is some similar thread for C++, maybe ideas can be copied:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-12/msg00053.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28105
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2010-12-01
15:38:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> For automatic and static arrays, different code paths are chosen.
I think one should try to get some checking working for INTEGER_CST_P only,
i.e. independe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28105
--- Comment #8 from Janne Blomqvist 2010-12-01 14:43:55
UTC ---
AFAICS the patch I committed in #6 as r167317 only changes how the ALLOCATE
statement is compiled. For automatic and static arrays, different codepaths are
chosen.
In principle we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28105
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28105
--- Comment #6 from Janne Blomqvist 2010-11-30 21:33:36
UTC ---
Author: jb
Date: Tue Nov 30 21:33:32 2010
New Revision: 167317
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=167317
Log:
PR fortran/28105 Overflow check for ALLOCATE stateme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28105
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28105
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jb at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedT
--- Comment #3 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-15 12:30 ---
*** Bug 39772 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-18 07:05
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Will this be appropriate for all front-ends? Then, this is a duplicate of (or
> very related to) bug 18063.
We probably want runtime checks generated by the Fortran front-end for this
c
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 15:43 ---
Will this be appropriate for all front-ends? Then, this is a duplicate of (or
very related to) bug 18063.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
12 matches
Mail list logo