OK. Sorry for the delay.
Jason
On 07/18/2012 04:31 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 07/18/2012 03:55 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/26/2012 10:29 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
+ /* Set to (size_t)-1 if the size check fails. */
+ if (size_check != NULL_TREE)
+*size = fold_build3 (COND_EXPR, sizetype, size_check,
+
On 07/18/2012 03:55 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/26/2012 10:29 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
+ /* Set to (size_t)-1 if the size check fails. */
+ if (size_check != NULL_TREE)
+*size = fold_build3 (COND_EXPR, sizetype, size_check,
+ original_size, TYPE_MAX_VALUE (sizetype));
On 06/26/2012 10:29 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
+ /* Set to (size_t)-1 if the size check fails. */
+ if (size_check != NULL_TREE)
+*size = fold_build3 (COND_EXPR, sizetype, size_check,
+original_size, TYPE_MAX_VALUE (sizetype));
VEC_safe_insert (tree, gc, *args, 0
On 06/26/2012 04:29 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_86-unknown-linux-gnu, with no new
regressions (this time including Java). Okay for trunk?
Ping?
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
On 06/14/2012 11:55 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
This is another attempt at ensuring that operator new[] always returns a
block of sufficient size.
This is on top of my previous patch rejecting VLA allocations:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg00616.html
I've committed the patch refer
This is another attempt at ensuring that operator new[] always returns a
block of sufficient size.
This is on top of my previous patch rejecting VLA allocations:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg00616.html
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux-gnu.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Pro
