This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Memory corruption due to word sharing
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: "Boehm, Hans" <hans dot boehm at hp dot com>
- Cc: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation dot org>, Jan Kara <jack at suse dot cz>, LKML <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, "linux-ia64 at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-ia64 at vger dot kernel dot org>, "dsterba at suse dot cz" <dsterba at suse dot cz>, "ptesarik at suse dot cz" <ptesarik at suse dot cz>, "rguenther at suse dot de" <rguenther at suse dot de>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:54:48 -0700
- Subject: Re: Memory corruption due to word sharing
- References: <20120201151918.GC16714@quack.suse.cz> <CA+55aFy55Q=+pFCZcS9cOM6SL+ZT3sNDB+c4qFvVqwwSpTqJ7g@mail.gmail.com> <1328118174.15992.6206.camel@triegel.csb> <A3E67C2071F49C4CBC4F17E6D77CDDD23275408E@G4W3299.americas.hpqcorp.net>
On 02/01/2012 12:44 PM, Boehm, Hans wrote:
C11 is a published standard. Last I checked, gcc did not follow many of the above rules. It looks like major changes were recently merged into the gcc trunk, and I haven't had a chance to test those, so it may well be fixed. But more importantly, so far I haven't read anything here to dissuade me that they are the right target.
The bitfield changes didn't make it into gcc-4.7; we're still working
through implementation details. GCC's bitfield support is a horrid
nasty mess which has made implementation of the standard problematical.
It's on Aldy's plate for gcc-4.8.
jeff