https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62188
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:53:58AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 07:51:45AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 01:08:22PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62188
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 07:51:45AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 01:08:22PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > Steve, should we also add a test case for the "n1 < 0"?
> >
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62188
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 01:08:22PM +, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62188
>
> Tobias Burnus changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62188
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62188
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62188
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Aug 20 16:22:20 2014
New Revision: 214230
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214230&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-20 Steven G. Kargl
PR libgfortran/62188
* m4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62188
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Aug 20 16:23:55 2014
New Revision: 214231
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214231&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-20 Steven G. Kargl
PR libgfortran/62188
* m4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62188
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Wed Aug 20 16:18:27 2014
New Revision: 214229
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214229&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-08-20 Steven G. Kargl
PR libgfortran/62188
* m4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62188
--- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> I assume you found this by using a libc with
> a malloc that has buffer overflow detection.
Actually, no. We inspected the function manually looking for the
cause of a t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62188
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62188
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
11 matches
Mail list logo