On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 11:45, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 09:21, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
>> On Jun 20 2023, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>
>> > Is it safe even on 64bit targets? I mean, doesn't say PowerPC already
>> allow
>> > full 64-bit virtual address space? The
On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 09:21, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Jun 20 2023, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > Is it safe even on 64bit targets? I mean, doesn't say PowerPC already
> allow
> > full 64-bit virtual address space? The assumption that one can't have
> > more than half of virtual a
On Jun 20 2023, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Is it safe even on 64bit targets? I mean, doesn't say PowerPC already allow
> full 64-bit virtual address space? The assumption that one can't have
> more than half of virtual address space allocations is true right now at
> least on x86-64,
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 09:50:25AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > >
> > > size_type
> > > _M_check_len(size_type __n, const char* __s) const
> > > {
> > > const size_type __size = size();
> > > const size_type __max_size = max_size();
> > >
> > > if (__is_sa
> > >
> > > size_type
> > > _M_check_len(size_type __n, const char* __s) const
> > > {
> > > const size_type __size = size();
> > > const size_type __max_size = max_size();
> > >
> > > if (__is_same(allocator_type, allocator<_Tp>)
> > > && __s
> >
> > size_type
> > _M_check_len(size_type __n, const char* __s) const
> > {
> > const size_type __size = size();
> > const size_type __max_size = max_size();
> >
> > if (__is_same(allocator_type, allocator<_Tp>)
> > && __size > __max_size /
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 at 12:20, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 01:05:36PM +0200, Jan Hubicka via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > > - if (max_size() - size() < __n)
> > > - __throw_length_error(__N(__s));
> > > + const size_type __max_size = max_size();
> > > + // O
On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 at 16:13, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 at 12:20, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 01:05:36PM +0200, Jan Hubicka via Gcc-patches
>> wrote:
>> > - if (max_size() - size() < __n)
>> > - __throw_length_error(__N(__s));
>> > + const si
P.S. please CC libstd...@gcc.gnu.org for all libstdc++ patches.
On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 at 16:13, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 at 12:20, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 01:05:36PM +0200, Jan Hubicka via Gcc-patches
>> wrote:
>> > - if (max_size() - size() < __n)
On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 at 12:20, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 01:05:36PM +0200, Jan Hubicka via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
> > - if (max_size() - size() < __n)
> > - __throw_length_error(__N(__s));
> > + const size_type __max_size = max_size();
> > + // On 64bit systems
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 01:05:36PM +0200, Jan Hubicka via Gcc-patches wrote:
> - if (max_size() - size() < __n)
> - __throw_length_error(__N(__s));
> + const size_type __max_size = max_size();
> + // On 64bit systems vectors can not reach overflow by growing
> + // by small si
> > - if (max_size() - size() < __n)
> > - __throw_length_error(__N(__s));
> > + // On 64bit systems vectors of small sizes can not
> > + // reach overflow by growing by small sizes; before
> > + // this happens, we will run out of memory.
> > + if (__builtin_c
On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 at 19:37, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> _M_check_len is used in vector reallocations. It computes __n + __s but
> does
> checking for case that (__n + __s) * sizeof (Tp) would overflow ptrdiff_t.
> Since we know that __s is a size of already allocated memory block if __n
> is
> n
Hi,
_M_check_len is used in vector reallocations. It computes __n + __s but does
checking for case that (__n + __s) * sizeof (Tp) would overflow ptrdiff_t.
Since we know that __s is a size of already allocated memory block if __n is
not too large, this will never happen on 64bit systems since memor
14 matches
Mail list logo
