Le 01/08/2024 à 21:02, Thomas Koenig a écrit :
Hi Mikael,
+ gcc_assert (backexpr->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE);
drop it, downgrade to checking, or is it worth?
Whether it is worth it, I don't know; it's protecting the access to
backexpr->symtree a few lines down, idependently of the imp
Hi Mikael,
+ gcc_assert (backexpr->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE);
drop it, downgrade to checking, or is it worth?
Whether it is worth it, I don't know; it's protecting the access to
backexpr->symtree a few lines down, idependently of the implementation
of maybe_absent_optional_variable.
On 27 July 2024 21:11:19 CEST, Mikael Morin wrote:
>Le 27/07/2024 à 19:23, rep.dot@gmail.com a écrit :
>> On 22 July 2024 20:53:18 CEST, Mikael Morin wrote:
>>> From: Mikael Morin
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> this fixes a null pointer dereference with absent optional dummy passed
>>> as BACK arg
Le 27/07/2024 à 19:23, rep.dot@gmail.com a écrit :
On 22 July 2024 20:53:18 CEST, Mikael Morin wrote:
From: Mikael Morin
Hello,
this fixes a null pointer dereference with absent optional dummy passed
as BACK argument of MINLOC/MAXLOC.
Tested for regression on x86_64-linux.
OK for master
On 22 July 2024 20:53:18 CEST, Mikael Morin wrote:
>From: Mikael Morin
>
>Hello,
>
>this fixes a null pointer dereference with absent optional dummy passed
>as BACK argument of MINLOC/MAXLOC.
>
>Tested for regression on x86_64-linux.
>OK for master?
>
>-- >8 --
>
>Protect the evaluation of BACK w
