On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 01:43, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:58:20PM +0200, Nic Volanschi wrote:
> > 3. (in the caller:) exiting the function after a va_start() then a call
> > to the mangler without an va_end().
> > This one involves more than a from/to/avoid; it is of the form
> > fr
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:58:20PM +0200, Nic Volanschi wrote:
> 3. (in the caller:) exiting the function after a va_start() then a call
> to the mangler without an va_end().
> This one involves more than a from/to/avoid; it is of the form
> from/then/to/avoid. In other words, the corresponding aut
On Wed, 2006-04-05 at 09:12, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> It's an interesting system. I wonder if it's powerful enough to express
> the rather complicated constraints on objects of type va_list. Warnings
> for violations of those constraints would be valuable - there are common
> portability errors tha
It's an interesting system. I wonder if it's powerful enough to express
the rather complicated constraints on objects of type va_list. Warnings
for violations of those constraints would be valuable - there are common
portability errors that could be caught - but it's never been important
enough t
OK, I have put a preview of the tree-check pass (performing lightweight
user-defined checks) on:
http://mygcc.free.fr.
Any comments are welcome.
Nic.
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 17:23, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 03/27/06 16:35, Nic Volanschi wrote:
>
> > The checks are specified using a new option --
