On Sun, 2013-10-27 at 07:48 +0100, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 01:50:14AM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 09:29:12PM +0200, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> > > Hi, as I brainstormed how prevent possible overflows in memory allocation
> > > I
> > > came with h
Or just wait till the integer overflow detection in ubsan is completed.
Marek
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:51:00AM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Or just wait till the integer overflow detection in ubsan is completed.
>
As these computations now are done on unsigned type which has behaviour
defined as modular arithmetic this would not help.
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 12:35:24PM +0100, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:51:00AM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Or just wait till the integer overflow detection in ubsan is completed.
> >
> As these computations now are done on unsigned type which has behaviour
> defined as modul
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 02:15:57PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 12:35:24PM +0100, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:51:00AM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > Or just wait till the integer overflow detection in ubsan is completed.
> > >
> > As these computat
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013, Brooks Moses wrote:
> I'm trying to reproduce a test failure outside the Dejagnu testsuite,
> and I noticed that the file I'm trying to recompile is linked with a
> gcc_tg.o file. Based on the missing-symbol errors I get when I don't
> include it, it seems to provide things l
To make it easier to reproduce builds of software and entire GNU/Linux
distributions, RMS had the idea of adding a warning to GCC that warns
about the use of __DATE__ and __TIME__.
Short of "interesting" changes to the environment or #defining these
two, as soon as a program uses __DATE__ or __T
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
To make it easier to reproduce builds of software and entire GNU/Linux
distributions, RMS had the idea of adding a warning to GCC that warns
about the use of __DATE__ and __TIME__.
I assume that he also likes to have a warning for __TIMESTAMP__.
I was thinking a new warn
Tobias Burnus writes:
> diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c.opt b/gcc/c-family/c.opt
> index 22f8939..f765018 100644
> --- a/gcc/c-family/c.opt
> +++ b/gcc/c-family/c.opt
> @@ -640,6 +640,10 @@ Wpragmas
> C ObjC C++ ObjC++ Var(warn_pragmas) Init(1) Warning
> Warn about misuses of pragmas
>
> +Wdate-t
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013, Tobias Burnus wrote:
I assume that he also likes to have a warning for __TIMESTAMP__.
So do I, but I asked to be sure.
Do you mean something like the attached patch? (Only lightly tested.)
Yep! Thanks.
+@item -Wdate-time
+@opindex Wdate-time
+@opindex Wno-date-time
> as soon as a program uses __DATE__ or __TIME__ at least once, builds of the
> program will differ for that reason alone.
Indeed. But I don’t really see the point of a warning: it’s not the sort of
feature you use and then accidentaly discover that they have unintended
side-effect; it’s actual
11 matches
Mail list logo
