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,
>
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, and
> said:
>
> > I'm not going to have time to finish #22 or #37 -- hell,
On Tue, 2020-01-14 at 00:55 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 06:42:06PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> > Thanks. Does it have warnings, though?
> >
> > My attempt was similar, but ran into warnings from -Wclass-
> > memaccess in
> > four places, like this:
> >
> > ../../src/g
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 06:42:06PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> Thanks. Does it have warnings, though?
>
> My attempt was similar, but ran into warnings from -Wclass-memaccess in
> four places, like this:
>
> ../../src/gcc/hash-map-traits.h:102:12: warning: ‘void* memset(void*,
> int, size_t)’
On Tue, 2020-01-14 at 00:26 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:56:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > Some options:
> > > (a) the patch to fix hash_table::empty, and the analyzer kit
> > > (b) the analyzer kit with the following kludge
> > > (c) someone with better C++-fu t
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:56:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Some options:
> > (a) the patch to fix hash_table::empty, and the analyzer kit
> > (b) the analyzer kit with the following kludge
> > (c) someone with better C++-fu than me figure out a way to get the
> > memset optimization for has
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 05:10:24PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> Unfortunately, I didn't resolve the hash_table/hash_map issue
> referred to here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg00734.html
> where r279139 on 2019-12-09 introduced the assumption that empty
> hash_table entries and
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, and
said:
> I'm not going to have time to finish #22 or #37 -- hell, I'm not even
> supposed to be working today :-)
>
> I'd
13 matches
Mail list logo
