From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EE6E385740F for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2022 19:31:56 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 9EE6E385740F Received: from mail-qk1-f197.google.com (mail-qk1-f197.google.com [209.85.222.197]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-570-jDtq_VztP5apnRfH8r29zQ-1; Sun, 03 Jul 2022 15:31:55 -0400 X-MC-Unique: jDtq_VztP5apnRfH8r29zQ-1 Received: by mail-qk1-f197.google.com with SMTP id f10-20020a05620a408a00b006b267fdf71fso4985542qko.6 for ; Sun, 03 Jul 2022 12:31:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=NHxGXH4xlcrvQqhM2a21Y6Axk2vqQEsgct4dTSxD34M=; b=onZYYEp+z5VNSIuWnAjTeMTdi130983CAlI7K3ajH8AaYMuLYaN3JbHSj5hQp2EwCg Qc0PIReO/EnOKRk9dw0IlWk1g7kJO98N84WzmvDBKrkWJTxhhyFYbxPVk76p/e0BR17l XkB5lqz3BepsldAkw3QpARRRG1P3tzHjc45gzEnsyxx4d2b05UVYxajp+j5B2MdWzpYV UXRM4YatLIdeIRWA7oCT3WCWozBtZUXCd3nx5Tq7kq8deqVawgE2wkniF4BeE7rC6lli 5mCjcb/HUC3XPhAjTT7E8KeAgYErDYYcA6xBBYTktmX0ROkcY4nUmwyTJuMEnIaJIvHe 5VAw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9vxQC+Doqewe4FdfKZHxSo9BXfhAhIsDOPgpFgH7mB8OyoUK/n 7tRX9bOJExSkE/a4u51Ea7LXUwepKCIUQc64AhjW8XmT9+lRk3wVfvzVzhOjccvRjgf8+L3Vdz3 6JZbZYYa/2GptdyyMgBHQYQ== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:d988:0:b0:470:a35b:5195 with SMTP id y8-20020a0cd988000000b00470a35b5195mr26621343qvj.75.1656876714820; Sun, 03 Jul 2022 12:31:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1tJ2a6pIod0WUOXnwJuwZX5tyjvIPTqQdgetpV9khrB5s71Lw03JlKEZSkVfl4Gy/BqCCdBKA== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:d988:0:b0:470:a35b:5195 with SMTP id y8-20020a0cd988000000b00470a35b5195mr26621337qvj.75.1656876714662; Sun, 03 Jul 2022 12:31:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from t14s.localdomain (c-73-69-212-193.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [73.69.212.193]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bq9-20020a05620a468900b006af6f0893c6sm12130881qkb.91.2022.07.03.12.31.53 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 03 Jul 2022 12:31:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3d9cab86bdfc176bd149dc9350e126ba9b592328.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] analyzer: Use fixed-width types in allocation size tests From: David Malcolm To: Tim Lange , skpgkp2@gmail.com Cc: gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2022 15:31:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <8c3d7ec0d17128ca1fd9e18cb82ba6e773d6c378.camel@redhat.com> References: <20220702211052.501C42864754@gskx-2.sc.intel.com> <20220702232011.51345-1-mail@tim-lange.me> <8c3d7ec0d17128ca1fd9e18cb82ba6e773d6c378.camel@redhat.com> User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.4 (3.38.4-1.fc33) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-regression mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2022 19:32:01 -0000 On Sat, 2022-07-02 at 19:38 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > On Sun, 2022-07-03 at 01:20 +0200, Tim Lange wrote: > > Hi, > > > > thanks for the mail! Embarrassingly, I did not account for the > > different > > sizes types may have on different systems. I've switched all > > testcases > > to the fixed-width types of stdint.h. > > > > Does this patch need an approval? > > Arguably falls under the "obvious" rule. > > That said, the patch looks good to me, though given that the sizes > are > now fixed the \\d+ regexps could be made more precise, if you like; I > think it's good either way. ...and in case I didn't say earlier, Tim: congratulations on getting your first patch into gcc. Dave