On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:00:48AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 02/14/2018 11:03 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> >> 2018-02-13 Jakub Jelinek
> >>
> >>PR sanitizer/84340
> >>* c-decl.c (build_compound_literal): Call pushdecl (decl) even when
On 02/26/2018 11:04 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:00:48AM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 02/14/2018 11:03 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
2018-02-13 Jakub Jelinek
PR sanitizer/84340
* c-decl.c (build_co
On 02/14/2018 11:03 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> 2018-02-13 Jakub Jelinek
>>
>> PR sanitizer/84340
>> * c-decl.c (build_compound_literal): Call pushdecl (decl) even when
>> it is not TREE_STATIC.
>> * c-typeck.c (c_mark_addressable
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 2018-02-13 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR sanitizer/84340
> * c-decl.c (build_compound_literal): Call pushdecl (decl) even when
> it is not TREE_STATIC.
> * c-typeck.c (c_mark_addressable) : Mark
> not just the COMPOUND_LITERAL_EX
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 03:40:20PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> BTW, your testcase shows a more severe problem, that we actually don't
> handle compound literals correctly.
>
> C99 says that:
> "If the compound literal occurs outside the body of a function, the object
> has static storage duratio