--- Comment #18 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-12 14:57 ---
Fixed for 4.2.0.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #17 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-12 14:56 ---
Subject: Bug 30416
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Jan 12 14:56:29 2007
New Revision: 120725
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120725
Log:
2007-01-12 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libst
--- Comment #16 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-12 13:35 ---
Subject: Bug 30416
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Jan 12 13:34:47 2007
New Revision: 120722
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120722
Log:
2007-01-12 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libst
--- Comment #15 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-12 13:06
---
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV in valarray::cshift(n) on empty array
"paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Subject: Bug 30416
|
| Author: paolo
| Date: Fri Jan 12 11:09:26 2007
| New Revision:
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30416
--- Comment #14 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-12 11:09 ---
Subject: Bug 30416
Author: paolo
Date: Fri Jan 12 11:09:26 2007
New Revision: 120720
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120720
Log:
2007-01-12 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR libst
--- Comment #13 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-10 23:47 ---
Ok, thanks a lot. I'm going to work on those changes for v3.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #12 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-10 23:27
---
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV in valarray::cshift(n) on empty array
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Forgot: assuming we imagine the standard clarified per your proposal
| on LWG (or read as s
--- Comment #11 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-10 19:18 ---
Forgot: assuming we imagine the standard clarified per your proposal on LWG (or
read as such for all practical matters), I understand that not segfaulting when
size == 0 would be a conforming behavior. Then, in v3, we coul
--- Comment #10 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-10 18:56 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Paolo -- there is what the standard says, and what we can or should implement.
> I believe there is a genuine bug in the standard here, no matter how
> easy it is to avoid the segmentation fault.
--- Comment #9 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2007-01-10 05:55 ---
Even if the spec did permit undefined behavior it would make sense to implement
something reasonable if it's easy (as Paolo suggests it might be) and if the
cost
is acceptable. But just to put your mind at ease I'll writ
--- Comment #8 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-10 03:37
---
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV in valarray::cshift(n) on empty array
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Well, IMHO, avoiding this SIGSEGV is so easy, I would change anyway both
shift
| and cshift
--- Comment #7 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-10 03:33
---
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV in valarray::cshift(n) on empty array
"sebor at roguewave dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #3)
| > The standard refers to "(l+n)%size()", so if size()=0, that
--- Comment #6 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-10 03:32
---
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV in valarray::cshift(n) on empty array
"chris at bubblescope dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The standard refers to "(l+n)%size()", so if size()=0, that seems to be
| undefined. On
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-09 23:17 ---
Well, IMHO, avoiding this SIGSEGV is so easy, I would change anyway both shift
and cshift (i.e., wrap everything in a check that size() > 0), and be done with
it, if nobody strongly disagree... While we are at it, quickly l
--- Comment #4 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2007-01-09 22:34 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> The standard refers to "(l+n)%size()", so if size()=0, that seems to be
> undefined. On the other hand, it seems fairly obvious what should happen in
> this case (ie nothing).
The requirement
--- Comment #3 from chris at bubblescope dot net 2007-01-09 22:21 ---
The standard refers to "(l+n)%size()", so if size()=0, that seems to be
undefined. On the other hand, it seems fairly obvious what should happen in
this case (ie nothing).
On an unrelated note, isn't there a another b
--- Comment #2 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-09 22:05
---
Subject: Re: New: SIGSEGV in valarray::cshift(n) on empty array
"sebor at roguewave dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| AFAIK, the program below should have well-defined behavior but it abends with
| gcc
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 22:02 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
19 matches
Mail list logo
