Am 2018-01-12 um 19:45 schrieb Jeff Law:
On 01/12/2018 11:26 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
Quick disclaimer: I'm 100% new to GCC code and the dev process, so
there are bound to be some faulty assumptions below.
I recently worked on a build of gcc, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu ->
x86_64-pc-linux-musl. In order
Hi,
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> > No. The qsort_chk effort was limited to catching instances where comparators
> > are invalid, i.e. lack anti-commutativity (may indicate A < B < A) or
> > transitivity property (may indicate A < B
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
> > No. The qsort_chk effort was limited to catching instances where comparators
> > are invalid, i.e. lack anti-commutativity (may indicate A < B < A) or
> > transitivity property (may indicate A < B < C <
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> No. The qsort_chk effort was limited to catching instances where comparators
> are invalid, i.e. lack anti-commutativity (may indicate A < B < A) or
> transitivity property (may indicate A < B < C < A). Fixing them doesn't
> imply making correspondin
Yes, this is the issue that I ran into.
I took the check further by asserting that if cmp(A, B) == 0,
memcmp(A, B) == 0 as well. But that''s tricky because the structure
may contain data that differs from A to B, but ultimately isn't used
after the sort. So it leads to a bunch of false-ish-positiv
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Jeff Law wrote:
> THe key here is the results can differ if the comparison function is not
> stable. That's inherent in the qsort algorithms.
I'm afraid 'stable' is unclear/ambiguous in this context. I'd rather say
'if the comparator returns 0 if and only if the items being c
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The qsort checking failures are tracked in http://gcc.gnu.org/PR82407
> meta bug, 8 bugs in there are fixed, 2 known ones remain.
Note that qsort_chk only catches really bad issues where the compiler
invokes undefined behavior by passing an invalid compa
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 01:54:25PM -0500, Cory Fields wrote:
> Thanks for letting me know about this effort. That's great news!
>
> Indeed, I ran into less of these issues on trunk. I'll go ahead and
> submit patches for the cases that turned up there.
The qsort checking failures are tracked in h
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/12/2018 11:26 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
>> Quick disclaimer: I'm 100% new to GCC code and the dev process, so
>> there are bound to be some faulty assumptions below.
>>
>> I recently worked on a build of gcc, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu ->
>> x86_64-pc
On 01/12/2018 11:26 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
> Quick disclaimer: I'm 100% new to GCC code and the dev process, so
> there are bound to be some faulty assumptions below.
>
> I recently worked on a build of gcc, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu ->
> x86_64-pc-linux-musl. In order to boost my confidence in musl, I
Quick disclaimer: I'm 100% new to GCC code and the dev process, so
there are bound to be some faulty assumptions below.
I recently worked on a build of gcc, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu ->
x86_64-pc-linux-musl. In order to boost my confidence in musl, I
decided that I'd like to ensure that 3 (and 4) stage
11 matches
Mail list logo
