On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 4:08 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 11/15/2017 03:51 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/14/2017 05:28 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
>
>>
On 11/15/2017 03:51 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/14/2017 05:28 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Richard, this thread may have been conflated with the one Re:
[PATCH] enhance -Warray-bounds
On 11/15/2017 03:51 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/14/2017 05:28 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Richard, this thread may have been conflated with the one Re:
[PATCH] enhance -Warray-bounds
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 11/14/2017 05:28 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> Richard, this thread may have been conflated with the one Re:
>>> [PATCH] enhance -Warray-bounds to detect out-of-bounds offsets
On 11/14/2017 05:28 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Richard, this thread may have been conflated with the one Re:
[PATCH] enhance -Warray-bounds to detect out-of-bounds offsets
(PR 82455) They are about different things.
I'm still looking for appr
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Richard, this thread may have been conflated with the one Re:
> [PATCH] enhance -Warray-bounds to detect out-of-bounds offsets
> (PR 82455) They are about different things.
>
> I'm still looking for approval of:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gc
Richard, this thread may have been conflated with the one Re:
[PATCH] enhance -Warray-bounds to detect out-of-bounds offsets
(PR 82455) They are about different things.
I'm still looking for approval of:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg01208.html
Thanks
Martin
The difficulty w
On 11/07/2017 03:18 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/06/2017 11:41 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/29/2017 10:15 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping -- please see my reply below.
On 10/20/2017 09:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
get_addr_base_and_unit_of
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 11/06/2017 11:41 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 10/29/2017 10:15 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> Ping -- please see my reply below.
>>>
>>> On 10/20/2017 09:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
get_addr_base_and_unit_offset will retu
On 11/06/2017 11:41 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/29/2017 10:15 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping -- please see my reply below.
On 10/20/2017 09:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
get_addr_base_and_unit_offset will return NULL if there's any
variable
component in 'ref'. So as written it seems to be dead c
On 10/30/2017 06:02 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping -- please see my reply below.
On 10/20/2017 09:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
get_addr_base_and_unit_offset will return NULL if there's any
variable
component in 'ref'. So as written i
On 10/29/2017 10:15 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Ping -- please see my reply below.
>
> On 10/20/2017 09:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> get_addr_base_and_unit_offset will return NULL if there's any
>>> variable
>> component in 'ref'. So as written it seems to be dead code (you
>> want t
On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Ping -- please see my reply below.
>
>
> On 10/20/2017 09:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> get_addr_base_and_unit_offset will return NULL if there's any
>>>
>>> variable
>>
>> component in 'ref'. So as written it seems to be
Ping -- please see my reply below.
On 10/20/2017 09:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
get_addr_base_and_unit_offset will return NULL if there's any
variable
component in 'ref'. So as written it seems to be dead code (you
want to pass 'arg'?)
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What
On October 20, 2017 5:43:40 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Sebor wrote:
>On 10/20/2017 02:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Martin Sebor
>wrote:
>>> On 10/19/2017 02:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Martin Sebor
>wrote:
>
> On 1
On 10/20/2017 02:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/19/2017 02:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/18/2017 04:48 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Martin Seb
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 10/19/2017 02:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/18/2017 04:48 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
>
>>
On 10/19/2017 02:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/18/2017 04:48 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
While testing my latest -Wrestrict changes I noticed a number of
opportunities to improve th
Good question! STRING_CST does have a domain. The problem is
that array_at_struct_end_p() returns true for STRING_CST. I've
added the handling to the function and removed the block above
from the latest patch.
Can you split out the STRING_CST handling and commit that separately
(split the tes
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 10/18/2017 04:48 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> While testing my latest -Wrestrict changes I noticed a number of
>>> opportunities to improve the -Warray-bounds warning. Attach
On 10/18/2017 04:48 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
While testing my latest -Wrestrict changes I noticed a number of
opportunities to improve the -Warray-bounds warning. Attached
is a patch that implements a solution for the following subset
of th
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> While testing my latest -Wrestrict changes I noticed a number of
> opportunities to improve the -Warray-bounds warning. Attached
> is a patch that implements a solution for the following subset
> of these:
>
> PR tree-optimization/82596 - mis
22 matches
Mail list logo