public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/47878] [4.6 Regression] 187.facerec miscompares
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:07:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-47878-4-8YxztdAgGS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-47878-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47878

--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-24 16:20:27 UTC ---
Do you prefer the patch in #c13, or what I wrote in #c14?  I'd prefer not to
test both.
As for pointer comparisons, you can't compare the old pointer with the new one,
that triggers undefined behavior in C.  Comparing the positions is of course
possible, but then I'd say we should just go with #c13 rather than #c14.
Actually, reading the code some more, #c14 variant is quite problematic,
because
e.g. for '\n' or '\r' or ',' in some cases the last read character is not
accounted into n, thus fbuf_getptr (dtp->u.p.current_unit) - n might be one
char after what we want to return.
Sure, I can add a comment about realloc.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-02-24 16:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-02-24 10:44 [Bug fortran/47878] New: " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 10:56 ` [Bug fortran/47878] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 11:04 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 11:07 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 11:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 11:48 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 14:01 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 14:16 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 14:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 14:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 14:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 14:51 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 14:55 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 15:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 15:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 16:22 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 17:07 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2011-02-24 17:23 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 17:41 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 18:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 18:31 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 18:53 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 18:54 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 20:17 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 20:43 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-24 22:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-25 10:55 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-05  0:06 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-07  3:09 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-07  3:14 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-47878-4-8YxztdAgGS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).