On 08/24/18 12:52, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 6:57 AM Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/21/18 10:33, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>
On 08/20/18 15:19, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
On 08/21/18 10:33, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
>> On 08/20/18 15:19, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>
On 08/20/18 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:05 PM Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
>>
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 08/20/18 15:19, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/20/18 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:05 PM Bernd Edlinger
> >>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08/01/18 11:29,
On 08/20/18 17:59, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 08/20/18 15:19, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/20/18 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:05 PM Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08/01/18 11:29, Richard Biene
On 08/20/18 15:19, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
>> On 08/20/18 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:05 PM Bernd Edlinger
>>> wrote:
On 08/01/18 11:29, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Hmm. I think it would be nice
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 08/20/18 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:05 PM Bernd Edlinger
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 08/01/18 11:29, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hmm. I think it would be nice if TREE_STRING_LENGTH would
> >>> match char[
On 08/20/18 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:05 PM Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08/01/18 11:29, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmm. I think it would be nice if TREE_STRING_LENGTH would
>>> match char[2] and TYPE_SIZE_UNIT even if that is inconvenient
>>> for your
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:05 PM Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08/01/18 11:29, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. I think it would be nice if TREE_STRING_LENGTH would
> > match char[2] and TYPE_SIZE_UNIT even if that is inconvenient
> > for your check above. Because the '\0' doesn't belong to t
On 08/01/18 11:29, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Hmm. I think it would be nice if TREE_STRING_LENGTH would
> match char[2] and TYPE_SIZE_UNIT even if that is inconvenient
> for your check above. Because the '\0' doesn't belong to the
> string. Then build_string internally appends a '\0' outside
>
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> >> > The change to have all STRING_CSTs NUL terminated (but that NUL
> >> > termination not necessarily inclided in STRING_LENGTH) is a good
> >> > one.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure how we can reliably verify NUL termination after the
> >> > fact though an
>> > The change to have all STRING_CSTs NUL terminated (but that NUL
>> > termination not necessarily inclided in STRING_LENGTH) is a good
>> > one.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure how we can reliably verify NUL termination after the
>> > fact though and build_string already makes sure to NUL terminate
>> >
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> > The change to have all STRING_CSTs NUL terminated (but that NUL
> > termination not necessarily inclided in STRING_LENGTH) is a good
> > one.
> >
> > I'm not sure how we can reliably verify NUL termination after the
> > fact though and build_string al
> The change to have all STRING_CSTs NUL terminated (but that NUL
> termination not necessarily inclided in STRING_LENGTH) is a good
> one.
>
> I'm not sure how we can reliably verify NUL termination after the
> fact though and build_string already makes sure to NUL terminate
> STRING_CSTs. So if
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
> > On 07/31/18 16:40, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:14 AM, Bernd Edlinger
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> could someone please review this patch and check it in into the GO F
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> On 07/31/18 16:40, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:14 AM, Bernd Edlinger
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> could someone please review this patch and check it in into the GO FE?
>>
>> I don't understand why the change is correct, and y
On 07/31/18 16:40, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:14 AM, Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
>>
>> could someone please review this patch and check it in into the GO FE?
>
> I don't understand why the change is correct, and you didn't explain
> it. Go strings are not NUL terminated. Go
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:14 AM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
>
> could someone please review this patch and check it in into the GO FE?
I don't understand why the change is correct, and you didn't explain
it. Go strings are not NUL terminated. Go strings always have an
associated length.
Ian
17 matches
Mail list logo
