On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 1:40 PM Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> I committed it. ran it again for fun. sigh. Looks like its also
> triggering another issue now in g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C
> where its issuing:
libstdc++v3's 23_containers/vector/bool/allocator/copy.cc fails m
I committed it. ran it again for fun. sigh. Looks like its also
triggering another issue now in g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C
where its issuing:
b.C: In function ‘void test_strcpy_new_int16_t(size_t, const size_t*)’:
b.C:76:12: warning: ‘void* __builtin_memcpy(void*, const void*, long
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:58:19AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>
> On 3/30/23 09:41, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 01:22:27PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > > however, as seems to be the case often, better ranges result in, I now
> > > get:
> > >
> > > FAIL: 23_containers/v
On 3/30/23 09:41, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 01:22:27PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
however, as seems to be the case often, better ranges result in, I now get:
FAIL: 23_containers/vector/bool/allocator/copy.cc (test for excess errors)
Our middle-end warnings are just badly
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 01:22:27PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> however, as seems to be the case often, better ranges result in, I now get:
>
> FAIL: 23_containers/vector/bool/allocator/copy.cc (test for excess errors)
Our middle-end warnings are just badly designed :(, the better value ranges
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 7:22 PM Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>
> The patch, or a slight variation (attached), in the PR allows us to
> generate better ranges be recomputing longer instruction sequences on
> outgoing edges.
>
> This in fact also fixes
> XPASS: gcc.dg/Walloca-13.c (test for bogus messages
