Marek Polacek wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 05:40:33PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 04:01:05PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Marek Polacek
>wrote:
>> > > Ping.
>> >
>> > Ok. (yay, oldest patch in my review queue ...)
>>
>> ;) tha
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 05:40:33PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 04:01:05PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > Ping.
> >
> > Ok. (yay, oldest patch in my review queue ...)
>
> ;) thanks. Just to be sure, did you
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 04:01:05PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Ping.
>
> Ok. (yay, oldest patch in my review queue ...)
;) thanks. Just to be sure, did you mean to ok this patch (that is,
the one with HOST_BITS_PER_INT)?
Bootstrap/r
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Ping.
Ok. (yay, oldest patch in my review queue ...)
Thanks,
Richard.
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 05:06:21PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 09:41:27AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:38 PM
Ping.
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 05:06:21PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 09:41:27AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Joseph S. Myers
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
> > >
> > >> Wouldn't it be better to simply pass
On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 09:41:27AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >> Wouldn't it be better to simply pass this using the variable size handling
> >> code? Thus, initialize args_size.var
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't it be better to simply pass this using the variable size handling
>> code? Thus, initialize args_size.var for too large constant size instead?
>
> Would that be compatible with the A
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to simply pass this using the variable size handling
> code? Thus, initialize args_size.var for too large constant size instead?
Would that be compatible with the ABI definition of how a large (constant
size) argument should be
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:17:22PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013, Marek Polacek wrote:
>>
>> > + /* We don't allow passing huge (> 2^30 B) arguments
>> > +by value. It would cause an overflow later
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:17:22PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> > + /* We don't allow passing huge (> 2^30 B) arguments
> > +by value. It would cause an overflow later on. */
> > + if (adjusted_args_size.constant >= (1
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013, Marek Polacek wrote:
> + /* We don't allow passing huge (> 2^30 B) arguments
> + by value. It would cause an overflow later on. */
> + if (adjusted_args_size.constant >= (1 << 30))
> + {
> + error ("passing too large
This "fixes" PR56344 by prohibiting passing arguments by value
of size >= 2^30 bytes. Probably no sane programmer would want to
do that, but it's better to issue an error than to segfault.
This would be a good opportunity to use __builtin_expect, but
we don't use that much in the codebase...
Reg
12 matches
Mail list logo
