https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98912
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98912
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:84110515b93a6709de24240d6658ac207db5129f
commit r11-7057-g84110515b93a6709de24240d6658ac207db5129f
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98912
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98912
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
How exactly it is gimplified depends on the target, optimization level etc.
Anyway, I'd suggest just to add a unsigned char padding; to the structure, that
seems easiest.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98912
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Well, lto_section is 8 byte long struct containing 2 ushort fields, 1 uchar,
> one byte padding (on most hosts) and one ushort field.
> So bet valgrind is complain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98912
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
For varasm.c line 8285 is
for (p = s; p < limit && *p != '\0'; p++)
So either the limit is wrong or there are some un-init bytes in
the string. My money is on option 2 ;->
Maybe a suitable firs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98912
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98912
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
