On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:47:37PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Please don't invoke undefined behavior in the asm statements.
> So, "r" (&c[5]) is fine, but not &c[5][2][2] is not, &x[-1] is not, etc.
> I'd say it should be ok to always just take address of the base
> variable in the asm. Otherwi
Hi!
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:36:38PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> static void __attribute__ ((noinline, noclone))
> fn7 (void)
> {
> - int n = 5, i;
> + int n = 5;
> + volatile int i;
>volatile int c[n][n][n];
> - c[5][2][2] = 2;
> - c[2][5][2] = 2;
> - c[2][2][5] = 2;
> + asm (""
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:49:56PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:40:40PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On IRC Ramana reported that on ARM ubsan/bounds-2.c test fails with -O0,
> > since we write to out-of-bounds location and probably rewrite the
> > frame pointer stored
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:40:40PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On IRC Ramana reported that on ARM ubsan/bounds-2.c test fails with -O0,
> since we write to out-of-bounds location and probably rewrite the
> frame pointer stored in the stack. This patch removes such stores
> and adds some asm magi
