On 09/30/14 03:01, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Sigh. Yea, I guess if we're hitting the allocator insanely hard,
scrubbing memory might turn out to slow things down in a significant
way. Or it may simply be the case that we're using free'd memory in
some way and with the MALLOC_PERTURB changes we're in
Hi Jeff,
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:40:58, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 09/27/14 03:53, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Comment before this change. Someone not familiar with this code is
going to have no idea why these two lines exist.
>>>
>>> Ok, I added a comment now, do you like it?
> Yes.
>
>
>>>
On 09/27/14 03:53, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Comment before this change. Someone not familiar with this code is
going to have no idea why these two lines exist.
Ok, I added a comment now, do you like it?
Yes.
Please try to include a testcase. If you're having trouble reproducing
on the trunk
Hmm, original massage bounced, resent, without html.
> From: bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de
> To: l...@redhat.com; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> CC: jos...@codesourcery.com
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix PR preprocessor/58893 access to uninitialized memory
>
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:16:05PM +0200, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Boot-Strapped and Regression-tested on x86_64-linux-gnu
> Ok for trunk?
-ENOPATCH.
Marek
