once upon a time |calloc(BIG,BIG)| silently overflowed, now it is fixed.
nowadays |new int[bignumber]| overflows as in:
[1]
volatile size_t n;
n= 4+((size_t)-1)/sizeof(int);
int *ptr;
cout << "n=" << n << endl;
ptr=new int[n];
cout << "ptr=" << ptr << endl;
cout << "ptr[n/2]=" << ptr[n/2] << endl;
Hi,
I was reading the "Problem reading corefiles on ARM" thread at the gcc
mailing list (from www-archive, I'm not subscribed) and the conclusions
are incorrect:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-08/msg00075.html
The problem in GCC noreturn attribute handling isn't how it optimizes
calling
Hi,
in binaries compiled with gcc 3.4.6 on an x86_64 machine, I get the following
behaviour. I wrote a little testcase:
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
unsigned long addr;
if ( (addr = (unsigned long)(__builtin_frame_address(0))) )
{
printf ("0x%08lx\n", addr);
if ( (addr = (uns
* Georgi Guninski:
> once upon a time |calloc(BIG,BIG)| silently overflowed, now it is fixed.
>
> nowadays |new int[bignumber]| overflows as in:
This is PR19351, first reported in 2002 (along with the calloc issue).
Hi,
When enabling -ftree-parallelize-loops=4 , bootstrap fails:
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
../../gcc/gcc/dwarf2out.c: In function âdwarf2out_frame_debugâ:
../../gcc/gcc/dwarf2out.c:2393: error: array subscript is above array
bounds
../../gcc/gcc/dwarf2out.c:2394: error: array subscrip
__builtin_frame_address with non-zero arguments is not supported on most
targets these days. It'll work on x86-64 if you also compile with
-fno-omit-frame-pointer.
That said, you almost certainly want to be using backtrace(3) instead.
r~
Hi,
> As far as I get it, there is no real failure here.
> Parloop, unaware of the array's upper bound, inserts the 'enough
> iterations' condition (i>400-1), and thereby
> makes the last iteration range from 400 upwards.
> VRP now has a constant it can compare to the array's upper bound.
> Cor
Diego Novillo wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 12:23, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Edelsohn wrote:
It currently is broken on many platforms. Why not remove it now? What is
the purpose of keeping a pass that does not work correctly and developers
cannot use?
As
