* Richard Guenther:
+ if (!flag_new_overflow_check)
+ return result;
>>>
>>> Let's check for constant results here. If we have a TREE_CONSTANT
>>> result that overflows, we can handle it even if we aren't emitting the
>>> checks for non-constant values.
>>
>> I assume I can report a
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Jason Merrill:
>
>> Sorry it's taken so long to review this.
>
> Same here. *sigh* Thanks for your comments.
>
>> On 02/21/2011 04:05 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> build_operator_new_call (tree fnname, VEC(tree,gc) **args,
>>> -
* Jason Merrill:
> Sorry it's taken so long to review this.
Same here. *sigh* Thanks for your comments.
> On 02/21/2011 04:05 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> build_operator_new_call (tree fnname, VEC(tree,gc) **args,
>> -tree *size, tree *cookie_size,
>> +
Sorry it's taken so long to review this.
On 02/21/2011 04:05 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
build_operator_new_call (tree fnname, VEC(tree,gc) **args,
-tree *size, tree *cookie_size,
+tree *size, tree size_with_cookie, tree *cookie_size,
We don't nee
* Florian Weimer:
> I have run "make check-c++" with no new failures on x86_64-gnu-linux
> twice, with the operator new[] check enabled and disabled; there were
> no new failures. If the check is disabled, trunk and patch produce
> identical assembler code for the test case.
>
> I still need some
