On 12/01/2016 09:24 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
So, let's use another testcase, -O2 -W -Wall -fno-tree-vrp -fno-tree-ccp
and again UB in it:
volatile bool e;
volatile int x;
int
main ()
{
x = 123;
*(char *)&e = x;
bool f = e;
x = __builtin_snprintf (0, 0, "%d", f);
}
This will store 1 into
On 11/30/2016 12:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
This patch fixes some minor nits I've raised in the PR, more severe issues
left unresolved there.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
2016-11-30 Jakub Jelinek
PR tree-optimization/78586
* gimp
On 12/01/2016 12:51 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:14:14PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/30/2016 12:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
This patch fixes some minor nits I've raised in the PR, more severe issues
left unresolved there.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux
So, let's use another testcase, -O2 -W -Wall -fno-tree-vrp -fno-tree-ccp
and again UB in it:
volatile bool e;
volatile int x;
int
main ()
{
x = 123;
*(char *)&e = x;
bool f = e;
x = __builtin_snprintf (0, 0, "%d", f);
}
This will store 1 into x, while without -fprintf-return-value it wou
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:14:14PM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 11/30/2016 12:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >Hi!
> >
> >This patch fixes some minor nits I've raised in the PR, more severe issues
> >left unresolved there.
> >
> >Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
On 11/30/2016 12:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
This patch fixes some minor nits I've raised in the PR, more severe issues
left unresolved there.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
Thank you. One comment below.
@@ -1059,7 +1048,12 @@ format_integer (const
Hi!
This patch fixes some minor nits I've raised in the PR, more severe issues
left unresolved there.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
2016-11-30 Jakub Jelinek
PR tree-optimization/78586
* gimple-ssa-sprintf.c (format_integer): Don't handle
