On 11/6/20 2:54 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/6/20 11:13 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/5/20 8:08 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/5/20 7:50 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/5/20 5:02 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/5/20 4:02 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/5/20 12:29 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On
On 11/5/20 2:29 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/1/20 11:25 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
I have applied the patch and ran some tests. There are quite
a few failures (see the list below). I have only looked at
a couple. The one in in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/builtin-sprintf-warn-3.c
boils down to the follow
On 11/6/20 11:13 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/5/20 8:08 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/5/20 7:50 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/5/20 5:02 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/5/20 4:02 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/5/20 12:29 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/1/20 11:25 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 1
On 11/5/20 8:08 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/5/20 7:50 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/5/20 5:02 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/5/20 4:02 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/5/20 12:29 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/1/20 11:25 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/1/20 9:34 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
O
On 11/5/20 7:50 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/5/20 5:02 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/5/20 4:02 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/5/20 12:29 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/1/20 11:25 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/1/20 9:34 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 10/1/20 3:22 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>
On 11/5/20 5:02 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/5/20 4:02 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/5/20 12:29 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/1/20 11:25 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/1/20 9:34 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 10/1/20 3:22 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 10/1/20 5:05 AM, Aldy Hernandez via G
On 11/5/20 2:29 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
signed char g (signed char min, signed char max)
{
signed char i = x;
return i < min || max < i ? min : i;
}
void gg (void)
{
__builtin_sprintf (a, "%i", g (0, 9)); // bogus warning
}
Im looking at this. its actually completely different code tha
On 11/5/20 4:02 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/5/20 12:29 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/1/20 11:25 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/1/20 9:34 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 10/1/20 3:22 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 10/1/20 5:05 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> Thanks for doing all
On 11/5/20 12:29 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/1/20 11:25 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/1/20 9:34 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 10/1/20 3:22 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 10/1/20 5:05 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> Thanks for doing all this! There isn't anything I don't unde
On 10/1/20 11:25 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/1/20 9:34 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 10/1/20 3:22 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 10/1/20 5:05 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> Thanks for doing all this! There isn't anything I don't understand
>>> in the sprintf changes so no q
On 10/1/20 9:34 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 10/1/20 3:22 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 10/1/20 5:05 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> Thanks for doing all this! There isn't anything I don't understand
>>> in the sprintf changes so no questions from me (well, almost none).
>>>
On 10/1/20 3:22 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 10/1/20 5:05 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> Thanks for doing all this! There isn't anything I don't understand
>>> in the sprintf changes so no questions from me (well, almost none).
>>> Just some comments:
>> Thanks for your commen
On 10/1/20 5:05 AM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
Thanks for doing all this! There isn't anything I don't understand
in the sprintf changes so no questions from me (well, almost none).
Just some comments:
Thanks for your comments on the sprintf/strlen API conversion.
The current call
> Thanks for doing all this! There isn't anything I don't understand
> in the sprintf changes so no questions from me (well, almost none).
> Just some comments:
Thanks for your comments on the sprintf/strlen API conversion.
>
> The current call statement is available in all functions that take
>
On 9/25/20 1:41 PM, Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 9/23/20 7:53 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 9/18/20 12:38 PM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
As part of the ranger work, we have been trying to clean up and
generalize interfaces whenever possible. This not only hel
On 9/28/20 11:27 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 9/25/20 11:41 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Since you have replied to this thread, whats your opinion whether
there should be an extra API entry point for range/value_after_stmt
or whether that should be rolled into the range_of_stmt routine, and
an
On 9/25/20 11:41 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 9/23/20 7:53 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 9/18/20 12:38 PM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
As part of the ranger work, we have been trying to clean up and
generalize interfaces whenever possible. This not only helps in
reducing
On 9/25/20 3:17 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 9/24/20 5:51 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 9/18/20 12:38 PM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
3. Conversion of sprintf/strlen pass to class.
This is a nonfunctional change to the sprintf/strlen passes. That is,
no effort was
On 9/23/20 7:53 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 9/18/20 12:38 PM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
As part of the ranger work, we have been trying to clean up and
generalize interfaces whenever possible. This not only helps in
reducing the maintenance burden going forward, but p
On 9/24/20 5:51 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 9/18/20 12:38 PM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
3. Conversion of sprintf/strlen pass to class.
This is a nonfunctional change to the sprintf/strlen passes. That is,
no effort was made to change the passes to multi-ranges. Ho
On 9/18/20 12:38 PM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
As part of the ranger work, we have been trying to clean up and
generalize interfaces whenever possible. This not only helps in
reducing the maintenance burden going forward, but provides mechanisms
for backwards compatibility between
On 9/24/20 12:46 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 9/24/20 1:53 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Finally, unless both a type and function with the same name exist
in the same scope there is no reason to mention the class-id when
referencing a class name. I.e., this
value_range_equiv *allocate_value_ra
On 9/24/20 1:53 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Finally, unless both a type and function with the same name exist
in the same scope there is no reason to mention the class-id when
referencing a class name. I.e., this
value_range_equiv *allocate_value_range_equiv ();
void free_value_range_equi
On 9/18/20 12:38 PM, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
As part of the ranger work, we have been trying to clean up and
generalize interfaces whenever possible. This not only helps in
reducing the maintenance burden going forward, but provides mechanisms
for backwards compatibility between
Forgot to include ChangeLog entries.
Aldy
>From 49246a5aa51aff0e1beb97b8415985ffdbd5d922 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Aldy Hernandez
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 09:23:12 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Initial implementation of value query class.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* Makefile.in: Add value-query.o
25 matches
Mail list logo
