From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 96665 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2017 16:40:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 96554 invoked by uid 89); 28 Apr 2017 16:40:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:40:33 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D48E1C05681A; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:40:33 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com D48E1C05681A Authentication-Results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=law@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com D48E1C05681A Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-117-12.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.117.12]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8AFB4FA20; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:40:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] handle sprintf(d, "%s", ...) in gimple-ssa-sprintf.c To: Martin Sebor , Gcc Patch List References: <64b29bd5-d59e-8268-5042-285912738ae4@gmail.com> <9e1a955c-6a93-3235-50ac-c00ba39d436f@gmail.com> <78c671f2-1469-ad95-2434-e86fd83d07b4@gmail.com> From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <3514eb40-3df3-10d9-1930-a01b3d9b8e79@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 17:06:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <78c671f2-1469-ad95-2434-e86fd83d07b4@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-04/txt/msg01512.txt.bz2 On 04/27/2017 07:35 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 04/25/2017 09:55 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> On 04/25/2017 04:05 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> On 04/21/2017 03:33 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> >> I think I may have included the (partial) the fix for 79062 to >> get some tests to pass but I'm not 100% sure. > > The following test fails without either this change or the > apparently equivalent change in fold-const.c: > > gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/sprintf.c > > Do you have a preference for one or the other? > >> Let me first submit the fix for the -fexec-charset limitation >> (bug 80523), see if I can separate out the partial fix for 79062, >> and then resubmit this patch. > > This patch was submitted here: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-04/msg01325.html > >> FWIW, my fix for bug 79062 is only partial (it gets the pass >> to run but the warnings are still not issued). I don't quite >> understand what prevents the warning flag(s) from getting set >> when -flto is used. This seems to be a bigger problem than >> just the sprintf pass not doing something just right. > > Clearly the charset bug fix is a prerequisite for this one, as > is the two line change above to get the pass to run with LTO. > The rest (issuing warnings with LTO) seems like an independent > issue that this fix shouldn't have to be blocked on. > > Do you agree? Given we don't have a good handle on the root cause for 79062, it seems we need to figure that out. Once we know the root cause that should guide us WRT what to do with the 2 line hunk (ie, independent or not). jeff