https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell ---
On 4/2/20 12:37 PM, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94454
>
> --- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
> (In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #4)
>> Oh, it is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53890
Bug #: 53890
Summary: bogus array bounds warning
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51113
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Sidwell 2011-11-15 20:12:33
UTC ---
On 11/15/11 10:03, markus at trippelsdorf dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51113
>
> With your patch:
> % c++ -shared -w -o /dev/null -fPIC -fno-rtti -pt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51297
--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell 2011-11-24 21:36:20
UTC ---
On 11/24/11 19:46, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> In fact the array is empty:
>
> (gdb) p n_names
> $1 = 0
> (gdb) p names
> $2 = (name_map_t *) 0x0
d'oh! A fix will be righ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51297
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Sidwell 2011-11-24 22:12:11
UTC ---
On 11/24/11 21:54, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51297
>
> --- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2011-11-24
> 21:54:15 UTC ---
>> d'o
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: nathan at acm dot org
Target Milestone: ---
Interesting talk at cppcon'19 by Miro Knejp 'Non-conforming C++: the Secrets
the Committee Is Hiding From You
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91898
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Created attachment 46941
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46941&action=edit
another example
thanks, yup.
I had a slightly different example ready to go (attached)
Rather than a single s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70909
--- Comment #29 from Nathan Sidwell ---
On 12/02/2016 12:58 PM, trippels at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Please also note that Nathan's lambda demangling patch needs adjustments,
> because with level 1 of recursion it prints everything twice.
sorry
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78635
--- Comment #10 from Nathan Sidwell ---
On 12/05/2016 03:44 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I thought that such constructs are widely used though, I believe e.g. glibc
> used arrays of structs with flexible array members in several places.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nathan at acm dot org
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
--- Comment #13 from Nathan Sidwell ---
No. Each dso's gcov machinery is individually invoked. There should be no
cross-dso accessing of data (beyond the global chain of dso)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
--- Comment #14 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Jan, I'm fairly sure that even though your fix makes things work, it is wrong.
You're at the very least exposing an internal API across the DSO boundary,
which should not be exposed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
--- Comment #17 from Nathan Sidwell ---
I'm having difficulty constructing a testcase that fails. 2 DSOs are isolated
as I expect. (rong, your description is essentially correct).
A recipe would be good. Also, is this on gcc trunk or gcc 5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
--- Comment #20 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Adding a call to __gcov_fork doesn't cause breakage. I'd much rather start
from a failing testcase than stab in the dark at various hypotheses.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
--- Comment #22 from Nathan Sidwell ---
thanks Honza, that was helpful. I'm an idiot. Your workaround unhiding
gcov_var is fine for now, while I figure out if there's a better way. I am
puzzled as to why I can't observe this failure in the test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64123
--- Comment #24 from Nathan Sidwell ---
xur, can you provide your testcase? with a regular use of multiple DSOs, I
can't get a failure. (no dlopen used).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
--- Comment #7 from Nathan Sidwell ---
On 11/19/20 10:18 AM, dcb314 at hotmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97905
>
> --- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
> (In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #5)
>> Dav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98315
--- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell ---
On 12/16/20 12:26 PM, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98315
>
> --- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98323
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
On 12/16/20 12:45 PM, dcb314 at hotmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98323
>
> --- Comment #3 from David Binderman ---
> (In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #2)
>> stu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98531
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Sidwell ---
On 1/27/21 8:30 AM, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98531
>
> --- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> Nathan,
20 matches
Mail list logo
