On Thu, 23 Jan 2020, David Malcolm wrote:
> Removing the assertions fixes it for me (a stage1 build, at least, and
> it then passes the testsuite).
>
> I've made this blunder in four places in the analyzer:
>
> call-string.cc:162: call_string::cmp
> program-point.cc:461: function_point::cm
On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 19:02 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 08:08:32PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> >
> > > Hi David,
> > >
> > > In function `tree_cmp` an invariant [1] is assumed which does not
> > > nec
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 08:08:32PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
>
> > Hi David,
> >
> > In function `tree_cmp` an invariant [1] is assumed which does not
> > necessarily
> > exist. In case both input trees are finally compared vi
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> In function `tree_cmp` an invariant [1] is assumed which does not necessarily
> exist. In case both input trees are finally compared via `strcmp`, then
>
> tree_cmp (t1, t2) == -tree_cmp (t2, t1)
>
> does not hold in g
Hi David,
In function `tree_cmp` an invariant [1] is assumed which does not necessarily
exist. In case both input trees are finally compared via `strcmp`, then
tree_cmp (t1, t2) == -tree_cmp (t2, t1)
does not hold in general, since function `strcmp (x, y)` guarantees only that a
negative integ
