Hi, I checked in this patch to fix buffer overflow in avx256-unaligned-load-7.c and avx256-unaligned-store-7.c.
H.J. --- diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog index 0e469f0..e7f0b22 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog +++ b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +2014-11-09 H.J. Lu <hongjiu...@intel.com> + + PR testsuite/63305 + * gcc.target/i386/avx256-unaligned-load-7.c (avx_test): Fix + buffer overflow. + * gcc.target/i386/avx256-unaligned-store-7.c (avx_test): Likewise. + 2014-11-09 Andreas Schwab <sch...@linux-m68k.org> * gcc.target/powerpc/pr51623.c: Fix implicit declarations. diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx256-unaligned-load-7.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx256-unaligned-load-7.c index 4a94e03..4c6054c 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx256-unaligned-load-7.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx256-unaligned-load-7.c @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ avx_test (void) cp = mp; dp = lp; - for (i = N; i >= 0; i--) + for (i = N; i > 0; i--) { *cp++ = str; *dp++ = str; @@ -45,13 +45,13 @@ avx_test (void) cp = mp; dp = lp; - for (i = N; i >= 0; i--) + for (i = N; i > 0; i--) { *ap++ = *cp++; *bp++ = *dp++; } - for (i = N; i >= 0; i--) + for (i = N; i > 0; i--) { if (strcmp (*--ap, "STR") != 0) abort (); diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx256-unaligned-store-7.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx256-unaligned-store-7.c index 85e387a..99a0c71 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx256-unaligned-store-7.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/avx256-unaligned-store-7.c @@ -30,13 +30,13 @@ avx_test (void) ap = ep; bp = fp; - for (i = N; i >= 0; i--) + for (i = N; i > 0; i--) { *ap++ = str; *bp++ = str; } - for (i = N; i >= 0; i--) + for (i = N; i > 0; i--) { if (strcmp (*--ap, "STR") != 0) abort ();