From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 39148 invoked by alias); 28 Sep 2015 10:03:33 -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 39137 invoked by uid 89); 28 Sep 2015 10:03:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_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, 28 Sep 2015 10:03:31 +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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33C8CC0AF3D7; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:03:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn1-4-33.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.4.33]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t8SA3S62001670; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 06:03:28 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Add mkoffload for Intel MIC To: Thomas Schwinge , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Ilya Verbin , Jakub Jelinek References: <20141021171323.GA47586@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> <20141021171602.GB47586@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> <20141022082103.GH10376@tucnak.redhat.com> <20141022185701.GA21398@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> <87r3ljuez8.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> Cc: Kirill Yukhin , Andrey Turetskiy From: Bernd Schmidt Message-ID: <5609106F.9040707@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:26:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87r3ljuez8.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg02094.txt.bz2 On 09/28/2015 10:26 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > - objcopy_argv[8] = NULL; > + objcopy_argv[objcopy_argc++] = NULL; > + gcc_checking_assert (objcopy_argc <= OBJCOPY_ARGC_MAX); On its own this is not an improvement - you're trading a compile time error for a runtime error. So, what is the other change this is preparing for? Bernd