On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I was mainly interested in whether such an approach is acceptable, or
> whether I need to stop evaluating sizeof right away, create SIZEOF_EXPR
> and only fold it during fully_fold*. I've briefly looked at that today,
The approach is fine. Delaying ev
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 03:39:29PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > + if (warn_sizeof_pointer_memaccess
> > + && sizeof_arg != NULL_TREE)
> > + sizeof_pointer_memaccess_warning (c_last_sizeof_arg_loc,
> > +
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> + if (warn_sizeof_pointer_memaccess
> + && sizeof_arg != NULL_TREE)
> + sizeof_pointer_memaccess_warning (c_last_sizeof_arg_loc,
> + expr.value, exprlist,
> +
Hi,
On 07/19/2012 03:16 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Also the c-family/ part of it, or just the c/ part? The latter I admit
is not very nice (another ugliness is that we want the parameters
before doing standard argument promotions on them).
The latter, the latter.
Unrelated, but I can't resist,
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:47:21PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 07/18/2012 02:40 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >The problem on the GCC side is that both the C and C++ FEs fold away the
> >sizeof too early (well, C++ FE only when not in a template, otherwise
> >SIZEOF_EXPR is created and guess one
Hi,
On 07/18/2012 02:40 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
The problem on the GCC side is that both the C and C++ FEs fold away the
sizeof too early (well, C++ FE only when not in a template, otherwise
SIZEOF_EXPR is created and guess one could tsubst its argument again).
I've only done C FE right now, in
