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 ();

Reply via email to