On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 01:41 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:37 AM Michael J. Baars
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 01:29 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:17 AM Michael J. Baars
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I just wrote this little
> > > I just wrote this little program to demonstrate a possible flaw in both
> > > malloc and calloc.
> > >
> > > If I allocate a the simplest memory region from main(), one out of three
> > > optimization flags fail.
> > > If I allocate the same region from a function, three out of three
> > >
On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 10:50 +0100, Gabriel Ravier via Gcc wrote:
> On 2/22/21 10:37 AM, Michael J. Baars wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 01:29 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:17 AM Michael J. Baars
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I just wrote this little prog
On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 01:41 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:37 AM Michael J. Baars
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 01:29 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:17 AM Michael J. Baars
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I just wrote this little
On 2/22/21 10:37 AM, Michael J. Baars wrote:
On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 01:29 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:17 AM Michael J. Baars
wrote:
Hi,
I just wrote this little program to demonstrate a possible flaw in both malloc
and calloc.
If I allocate a the simplest memory reg
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:37 AM Michael J. Baars
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 01:29 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:17 AM Michael J. Baars
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I just wrote this little program to demonstrate a possible flaw in both
> > > malloc and callo
On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 01:29 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:17 AM Michael J. Baars
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just wrote this little program to demonstrate a possible flaw in both
> > malloc and calloc.
> >
> > If I allocate a the simplest memory region from main(), one
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:17 AM Michael J. Baars
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I just wrote this little program to demonstrate a possible flaw in both
> malloc and calloc.
>
> If I allocate a the simplest memory region from main(), one out of three
> optimization flags fail.
> If I allocate the same region
Hi,
I just wrote this little program to demonstrate a possible flaw in both malloc
and calloc.
If I allocate a the simplest memory region from main(), one out of three
optimization flags fail.
If I allocate the same region from a function, three out of three optimization
flags fail.
Does some
make[2]: *** [s-match] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [all-gcc] Error 2
> make: *** [all] Error 2
>
> Why does moving definition of simplify constructor outside the class cause
> out of memory allocation ?
oops i didn't initialize capture_max.
sorry for the noise.
>
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
On 11/11/2014 11:33 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
Why does moving definition of simplify constructor outside the class cause
out of memory allocation ?
It's probably because you dropped the initialization of the capture_max
member.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security
does moving definition of simplify constructor outside the class cause
out of memory allocation ?
Thanks,
Prathamesh
Index: genmatch.c
===
--- genmatch.c (revision 217303)
+++ genmatch.c (working copy)
@@ -549,11 +549,7 @@
simplify
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:43 AM, zhaobin xv wrote:
>
> As I know in C :
> a. Global and static variables locate at data segment
> b. When a function is called, memory is allocated on the stack to hold
> parameter values, local variables, and the address of the calling
> function
> c. the struct is
Hi
As I know in C :
a. Global and static variables locate at data segment
b. When a function is called, memory is allocated on the stack to hold
parameter values, local variables, and the address of the calling
function
c. the struct is aligned based on the greatest alignment requirement
of it's me
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Maybe Ian can mention why he used alloca there instead of xmalloc.
It was a long time ago, but I expect it was just because alloca is
usually fine for memory that has to live for just a single function.
As a single-threaded program, GCC do
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> Maybe Ian can mention why he used alloca there instead of xmalloc.
It was a long time ago, but I expect it was just because alloca is
usually fine for memory that has to live for just a single function.
As a single-threaded program, GCC do
Andrew Pinski Wrote:
>> I figured out that ifcvt.c uses alloca to reserve mem on the stack. this is
>> the point where the segmentation fault occurs.
>
> It is also a regression from what I can tell too from 4.1.x.
And one that's fixed for GCC 4.8.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:05 AM, thorsten wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> this might be a noob Question but perhaps someone is so kind as to shed some
> light...
>
> using gcc-4.5.4 to build large files (as in wireshark or qemu) with
> Optimizations enabled (in my case -O2 -pipe -march=core2
> -fomit-fram
Hello all,
this might be a noob Question but perhaps someone is so kind as to shed
some light...
using gcc-4.5.4 to build large files (as in wireshark or qemu) with
Optimizations enabled (in my case -O2 -pipe -march=core2
-fomit-frame-pointer) I get segmentation faults due to Stack limits,
On 12/13/06, Sandeep Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
I tried compiling the above two programs :
on x86, 32 bit machines.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# gcc test.c
Try with optimization enabled (try -O1 and/or -O2).
Gr.
Steven
Hi all,
I tried compiling the above two programs :
on x86, 32 bit machines.
And when I used objdump on that I saw the following code.
Can anyone help me know,
Why in the objdump of our first program the esp is decremented by 18H bytes
and in the second program the esp is decremented by 28H bytes.
21 matches
Mail list logo
