On 08/17/2018 03:14 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> After the other patch has been applied, I re-based this patch accordingly.
>
> Except the mechanical changes, there are a few notable differences to the
> previous version:
>
> In string_constant, I added a similar check for the STRING_C
On 08/18/18 06:01, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/17/2018 03:14 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>
>> After the other patch has been applied, I re-based this patch accordingly.
>>
>> Except the mechanical changes, there are a few notable differences to the
>> previous version:
>>
>> In string_constant
On 08/17/2018 03:14 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> After the other patch has been applied, I re-based this patch accordingly.
>
> Except the mechanical changes, there are a few notable differences to the
> previous version:
>
> In string_constant, I added a similar check for the STRING_C
Hi!
After the other patch has been applied, I re-based this patch accordingly.
Except the mechanical changes, there are a few notable differences to the
previous version:
In string_constant, I added a similar check for the STRING_CSTs
because when callers don't use mem_size, they assume to be
a
On 08/03/2018 03:38 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 08/03/18 23:15, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 07/30/2018 02:21 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> On 07/30/18 21:52, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 07/30/2018 09:24 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 07/30/18 01:05, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 07/29/2018 04:56 A
On 08/03/2018 03:28 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 03:16:41PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 07/31/2018 12:33 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:01:38PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> We do not want to change what is currently accepted by the
> front end
On 08/13/18 16:27, Martin Sebor wrote:
> As I said below, the patch for PR 86552, 86711, 86714 that
> was first posted on July 19 fixes both of these issues and
> also diagnoses calls with unterminated strings:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg00155.html
>
Sorry, but you you
As I said below, the patch for PR 86552, 86711, 86714 that
was first posted on July 19 fixes both of these issues and
also diagnoses calls with unterminated strings:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg00155.html
On 08/12/2018 03:06 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to ping fo
Hi,
I'd like to ping for this patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg01800.html
I will add a new BZ entry for the (minor) regression this patch
introduces in gcc.dg/strlenopt-49.c and assign it to myself.
Thanks
Bernd.
On 07/29/18 12:56, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This fix
On 08/03/18 23:15, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/30/2018 02:21 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> On 07/30/18 21:52, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> On 07/30/2018 09:24 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 07/30/18 01:05, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 07/29/2018 04:56 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Thi
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 03:16:41PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/31/2018 12:33 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:01:38PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>> We do not want to change what is currently accepted by the
> >>> front end. period.
> >>
> >> On whose behalf are you maki
On 07/30/2018 01:52 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 07/30/2018 09:24 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> On 07/30/18 01:05, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> On 07/29/2018 04:56 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi!
This fixes two wrong code bugs where string_constant
returns over length string constants.
On 07/31/2018 12:33 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:01:38PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> We do not want to change what is currently accepted by the
>>> front end. period.
>>
>> On whose behalf are you making such categorical statements?
>> It was Jakub and Richard's suggesti
On 07/30/2018 02:21 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 07/30/18 21:52, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 07/30/2018 09:24 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> On 07/30/18 01:05, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 07/29/2018 04:56 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This fixes two wrong code bugs where string_con
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:01:38PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > We do not want to change what is currently accepted by the
> > front end. period.
>
> On whose behalf are you making such categorical statements?
> It was Jakub and Richard's suggestion in bug 86714 to reject
> the undefined excessi
On 07/30/2018 02:21 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 07/30/18 21:52, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 07/30/2018 09:24 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 07/30/18 01:05, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 07/29/2018 04:56 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi!
This fixes two wrong code bugs where string_constant
returns over length
On 07/30/18 21:52, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 07/30/2018 09:24 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> On 07/30/18 01:05, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> On 07/29/2018 04:56 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi!
This fixes two wrong code bugs where string_constant
returns over length string constants. Init
On 07/30/2018 09:24 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 07/30/18 01:05, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 07/29/2018 04:56 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi!
This fixes two wrong code bugs where string_constant
returns over length string constants. Initializers
like that are rejected in C++, but valid in C.
If by
On 07/30/18 01:05, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 07/29/2018 04:56 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> This fixes two wrong code bugs where string_constant
>> returns over length string constants. Initializers
>> like that are rejected in C++, but valid in C.
>
> If by valid you are referring to dec
On 07/30/2018 12:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 07/29/2018 04:56 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi!
This fixes two wrong code bugs where string_constant
returns over length string constants. Initializers
like that are rejected in C++, but valid in C.
If
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 07/29/2018 04:56 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > This fixes two wrong code bugs where string_constant
> > returns over length string constants. Initializers
> > like that are rejected in C++, but valid in C.
>
> If by valid you are referri
On 07/29/2018 04:56 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi!
This fixes two wrong code bugs where string_constant
returns over length string constants. Initializers
like that are rejected in C++, but valid in C.
If by valid you are referring to declarations like the one in
the added test:
const cha
Hi!
This fixes two wrong code bugs where string_constant
returns over length string constants. Initializers
like that are rejected in C++, but valid in C.
I have xfailed strlenopt-49.c, which tests this feature.
Personally I don't think that it is worth the effort to
optimize something that is p
23 matches
Mail list logo
