From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16117 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2015 21:27:45 -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 16102 invoked by uid 89); 5 Jan 2015 21:27:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 05 Jan 2015 21:27:43 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t05LRgmU022115 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 16:27:42 -0500 Received: from [10.3.113.130] (ovpn-113-130.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.130]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t05LRgIB014832; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 16:27:42 -0500 Message-ID: <54AB01CD.8030509@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 21:27:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakub Jelinek , Dodji Seketeli , Jason Merrill CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Patch ping References: <20150105135313.GS1667@tucnak.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20150105135313.GS1667@tucnak.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg00166.txt.bz2 On 01/05/15 06:53, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Hi! > > I'd like to ping 3 patches: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01519.html > - PR64344 - -fsanitize=float-cast-overflow fix - the C FE part > is approved, but not the sanitizer bits outside of the FE OK. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01271.html > - PR64265 - tsan support for exceptions OK. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00297.html > - -fsanitize=vptr support How is this different from vtable pointer verification that we already support? Is there some reason we can't just use that instead? jeff