On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 12:59:20PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:17:14AM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> > On 03/29/2015 09:25 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 01:01:57AM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> > >>
> > >> AFAICT your test succeeds without you
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:17:14AM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> On 03/29/2015 09:25 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 01:01:57AM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> >>
> >> AFAICT your test succeeds without your patch and does not test that the ICE
> >> reported by FX is gone (ind
On 03/29/2015 09:25 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 01:01:57AM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
AFAICT your test succeeds without your patch and does not test that the ICE
reported by FX is gone (indeed it is with your patch).
New patch and testcase. The ChangeLog entries ar
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 01:01:57AM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>
> AFAICT your test succeeds without your patch and does not test that the ICE
> reported by FX is gone (indeed it is with your patch).
>
New patch and testcase. The ChangeLog entries are in the
original email. Built and te
> Le 28 mars 2015 à 15:50, Steve Kargl a
> écrit :
>
> Can one do anything useful with a zero-sized array
> of strings where the length of a non-existent
> element of the array is nonzero?
The only answer I can give is that the users’ imagination is unbounded!
Dominique
> --
> Steve
>> 28 mars 2015, 01:33, Steve Kargl :
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 01:01:57AM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>>>
>>> AFAICT your test succeeds without your patch and does not test that the ICE
>>> reported by FX is gone (indeed it is with your patch).
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, I thought about that, b
See also my comment 2 in pr65429.
Cheers,
Dominique
> Le 28 mars 2015 à 01:33, Steve Kargl a
> écrit :
>
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 01:01:57AM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>>
>> AFAICT your test succeeds without your patch and does not test that the ICE
>> reported by FX is gone (indeed
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 01:01:57AM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>
> AFAICT your test succeeds without your patch and does not test that the ICE
> reported by FX is gone (indeed it is with your patch).
>
Yeah, I thought about that, but did not pursue it, yet.
It is a zero-size string issue b
Steve,
AFAICT your test succeeds without your patch and does not test that the ICE
reported by FX is gone (indeed it is with your patch).
TIA
Dominique
Steve Kargl wrote:
The following patch avoids the dereferencing of
a null pointer, which led to an ICE. The patch
here is a slight variation on the patch submitted
by drikosev at otenet dot gr. The testcase is a
slight variation on the code submitted by FX.
Built and regression tested on x86_6
The following patch avoids the dereferencing of
a null pointer, which led to an ICE. The patch
here is a slight variation on the patch submitted
by drikosev at otenet dot gr. The testcase is a
slight variation on the code submitted by FX.
Built and regression tested on x86_64-*-freebsd.
OK to c
11 matches
Mail list logo
