On 08/24/18 12:52, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 6:57 AM Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/21/18 10:33, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>
On 08/20/18 15:19, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
On 08/21/18 10:33, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
>> On 08/20/18 15:19, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>
On 08/20/18 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:05 PM Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
>>
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 08/20/18 15:19, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/20/18 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:05 PM Bernd Edlinger
> >>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08/01/18 11:29,
On 08/20/18 17:59, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 08/20/18 15:19, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/20/18 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:05 PM Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08/01/18 11:29, Richard Biene
On 08/20/18 15:19, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
>> On 08/20/18 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:05 PM Bernd Edlinger
>>> wrote:
On 08/01/18 11:29, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Hmm. I think it would be nice
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 08/20/18 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:05 PM Bernd Edlinger
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 08/01/18 11:29, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hmm. I think it would be nice if TREE_STRING_LENGTH would
> >>> match char[
On 08/20/18 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:05 PM Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08/01/18 11:29, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmm. I think it would be nice if TREE_STRING_LENGTH would
>>> match char[2] and TYPE_SIZE_UNIT even if that is inconvenient
>>> for your
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:05 PM Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08/01/18 11:29, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. I think it would be nice if TREE_STRING_LENGTH would
> > match char[2] and TYPE_SIZE_UNIT even if that is inconvenient
> > for your check above. Because the '\0' doesn't belong to t
On 08/01/18 11:29, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Hmm. I think it would be nice if TREE_STRING_LENGTH would
> match char[2] and TYPE_SIZE_UNIT even if that is inconvenient
> for your check above. Because the '\0' doesn't belong to the
> string. Then build_string internally appends a '\0' outside
>
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> >> > The change to have all STRING_CSTs NUL terminated (but that NUL
> >> > termination not necessarily inclided in STRING_LENGTH) is a good
> >> > one.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure how we can reliably verify NUL termination after the
> >> > fact though an
>> > The change to have all STRING_CSTs NUL terminated (but that NUL
>> > termination not necessarily inclided in STRING_LENGTH) is a good
>> > one.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure how we can reliably verify NUL termination after the
>> > fact though and build_string already makes sure to NUL terminate
>> >
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> > The change to have all STRING_CSTs NUL terminated (but that NUL
> > termination not necessarily inclided in STRING_LENGTH) is a good
> > one.
> >
> > I'm not sure how we can reliably verify NUL termination after the
> > fact though and build_string al
> The change to have all STRING_CSTs NUL terminated (but that NUL
> termination not necessarily inclided in STRING_LENGTH) is a good
> one.
>
> I'm not sure how we can reliably verify NUL termination after the
> fact though and build_string already makes sure to NUL terminate
> STRING_CSTs. So if
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
> > On 07/31/18 16:40, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:14 AM, Bernd Edlinger
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> could someone please review this patch and check it in into the GO F
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> On 07/31/18 16:40, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:14 AM, Bernd Edlinger
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> could someone please review this patch and check it in into the GO FE?
>>
>> I don't understand why the change is correct, and y
On 07/31/18 16:40, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:14 AM, Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
>>
>> could someone please review this patch and check it in into the GO FE?
>
> I don't understand why the change is correct, and you didn't explain
> it. Go strings are not NUL terminated. Go
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:14 AM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
>
> could someone please review this patch and check it in into the GO FE?
I don't understand why the change is correct, and you didn't explain
it. Go strings are not NUL terminated. Go strings always have an
associated length.
Ian
Hi,
could someone please review this patch and check it in into the GO FE?
Thanks
Bernd.
2018-07-31 Bernd Edlinger
* go-gcc.cc (Gcc_backend::string_constant_expression): Make string
literal properly NUL terminated.
diff -pur gcc/go/go-gcc.cc gcc/go/go-gcc.cc
--- gcc/go/go-gcc.cc 2018-06-
18 matches
Mail list logo
