Hi David,
>> I'm seeing quite a number of failures on Solaris (both sparc and
>> x86),
>> but also some on 32-bit Linux/x86:
>>
>> Running target unix/-m32
>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/data-model-1.c (test for warnings, line 610)
>> +FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/data-model-1.c (test for warnings, line 6
On Wed, 2020-01-15 at 13:30 +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> > I've rebased and squashed the analyzer patch kit and squashed patch
> > 2
> > of the hash_table fix into it, and re-tested it successfully, so
> > I've
> > pushed it to master (as 757bf1dff5e8cee34c0a75d06140ca972bfecfa7).
> >
Dimitar Dimitrov wrote:
On Wed, 15.01.2020, 14:30:43 EET Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi David,
I've rebased and squashed the analyzer patch kit and squashed patch 2
of the hash_table fix into it, and re-tested it successfully, so I've
pushed it to master (as 757bf1dff5e8cee34c0a75d06140ca972bfecfa7).
On Wed, 15.01.2020, 14:30:43 EET Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> > I've rebased and squashed the analyzer patch kit and squashed patch 2
> > of the hash_table fix into it, and re-tested it successfully, so I've
> > pushed it to master (as 757bf1dff5e8cee34c0a75d06140ca972bfecfa7).
> >
> > I'm
Hi David,
> I've rebased and squashed the analyzer patch kit and squashed patch 2
> of the hash_table fix into it, and re-tested it successfully, so I've
> pushed it to master (as 757bf1dff5e8cee34c0a75d06140ca972bfecfa7).
>
> I'm going to work through the various followup patches I had on my
> br
On Tue, 2020-01-14 at 08:55 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > I posted the initial version of the analyzer patch kit on 2019-11-
> > 15,
> > shortly before the close of stage 1.
> >
> > Jeff reviewed (most of) the latest version of the kit on Friday,
>
