On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 14:54 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 05/08/2015 09:59 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > Paul, although glibc's copy of parts of tzcode is a bit out of date, it
> > looks like the currenthttps://github.com/eggert/tz.git still has the
> > problematic code in private.h, relying on lef
On 05/08/2015 09:59 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
Paul, although glibc's copy of parts of tzcode is a bit out of date, it
looks like the currenthttps://github.com/eggert/tz.git still has the
problematic code in private.h, relying on left-shifting -1 which has
undefined behavior in C99/C11 (implementat
On Fri, 8 May 2015, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 21:15 +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:00:20PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > OK. Please install if you haven't already.
> >
> > I have not, so will do momentarily. Thanks,
> >
> > Marek
>
> Marek,
>
On 2015.05.08 at 09:38 -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>
> This patch has broken the glibc build. I am not sure if the problem is
> a bug in your patch or a bug in the code used by glibc. Here is a
> cutdown test case from glibc (timezone/scheck.c). This code compiled
> before your patch but now it
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 21:15 +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:00:20PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > OK. Please install if you haven't already.
>
> I have not, so will do momentarily. Thanks,
>
> Marek
Marek,
This patch has broken the glibc build. I am not sure if th
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:00:20PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> OK. Please install if you haven't already.
I have not, so will do momentarily. Thanks,
Marek
On 05/06/2015 05:37 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:54:58PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, Marek Polacek wrote:
trigger by default. One change is that we reject programs that use shift with
undefined behavior in a context where a constant expression is req
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:54:58PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> > trigger by default. One change is that we reject programs that use shift
> > with
> > undefined behavior in a context where a constant expression is required,
> > thus
> > e.g. enum E
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, Marek Polacek wrote:
> trigger by default. One change is that we reject programs that use shift with
> undefined behavior in a context where a constant expression is required, thus
> e.g. enum E { A = -1 << 0 };
> But I hope that's reasonable.
That seems appropriate (for C99
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 08:13:08PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> > + pedwarn (location, OPT_Wshift_negative_value,
> > +"left shift of negative value");
>
> Use of pedwarn is always suspect for something only undefined at
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015, Marek Polacek wrote:
> + pedwarn (location, OPT_Wshift_negative_value,
> + "left shift of negative value");
Use of pedwarn is always suspect for something only undefined at runtime;
it must not produce an error with -pedantic-errors in any co
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 03:31:55PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> There's a significant difference between the reasons why
> the behavior of the left shift is undefined when the left
> operand is negative vs when the right operand is, and
> between the results of such expressions computed by GCC
> an
On 04/24/2015 03:31 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 04/24/2015 10:27 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:11:39PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
I wonder if the tests where the left shift operands are both
constants really do invoke undefined behavior in GCC. For
example, AFAICS, in (-1 <
On 04/24/2015 10:27 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:11:39PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
I wonder if the tests where the left shift operands are both
constants really do invoke undefined behavior in GCC. For
example, AFAICS, in (-1 << 0) and other constant expressions
gcc compu
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 09:11:39PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I wonder if the tests where the left shift operands are both
> constants really do invoke undefined behavior in GCC. For
> example, AFAICS, in (-1 << 0) and other constant expressions
> gcc computes the shift in unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT
On 04/22/2015 12:36 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Currently, we warn if the right operand of a shift expression is negative,
or greater than or equal to the length in bits of the promoted left operand.
But we don't warn when we see a left shift of a negative value. That is
undefined behavior since C
On 04/22/2015 12:36 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Currently, we warn if the right operand of a shift expression is negative,
or greater than or equal to the length in bits of the promoted left operand.
But we don't warn when we see a left shift of a negative value. That is
undefined behavior since C
17 matches
Mail list logo
