https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104308
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #8)
> As spotted by Vincent Mihalkovic, the fix seems to be incomplete. If we run
> gcc-12.0.1-0.14.fc37.x86_64 on the following test-case, some diagnostic
> messages
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104293
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104073
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104072
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104071
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95325
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105264
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for filing this bug. I suspect the analyzer is getting confused about
the loop index on successive iterations (and state relating to this).
Please can you:
(a) specify exactly which compilation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105252
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105103
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103892
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103892
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Still affects trunk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102308
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102308
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
I typoed this bug's ID 102308 as 102208 in the commit message; so the message
went to the wrong bug; here's a copy-and-paste of the commit notification that
went there:
The master branch has been updated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102208
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102308
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Discovered whilst working on the fix for PR analyzer/102308:
#include "analyzer-decls.h"
struct st
{
vo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102824
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
As noted in https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-April/592889.html
the above patch seems to fix "make jit.pdf", but doesn't fix "make jit.dvi"; it
seems to be looking for .eps files for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104293
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104073
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104071
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102824
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
make pdf is looking for the images in:
gcc/jit/docs/_build/texinfo/libgccjit-figures
but they're in the source tree in:
gcc/jit/docs/_build/texinfo
I just tried:
git mv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105112
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Possible simplification: don't try to model floating-point operations e.g. any
binop on a floating point value has unknown_svalue as the result, so that
complicated floating-point computations can be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105074
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bero at lindev dot ch
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105113
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105112
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
FWIW, "perf report" shows that these are the top items in the profile:
8.72% libc-2.31.so [.] _int_malloc
6.68% libc-2.31.so [.] _int_free
2.91% cc1 [.] ana::binding_map::binding_map
2.76%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105112
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Example state (picked at random from -fdump-analyzer-exploded-nodes-2 output):
EN 113734:
preds: EN: 113733
succs: EN: 113735
callstring: []
before (SN: 12511 stmt: 0):
if (j_8254 <= 8191)
31 | for (j =
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Several large functions with arithmetics and one-deep loops, posted by Michael
Matz to gcc-patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-09/msg00062.html
Also at:
https
at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Should be fixed by the above commit; please reopen if it doesn't.
: analyzer
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The analyzer doesn't yet have any handling for the types, macros, functions
from :
https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/variadic
https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3
Component: analyzer
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
(spotted while fixing PR analyzer/105087)
We don't yet have any special-casing of asprintf and vasprintf, and there
doesn't seem to be a way to express their behavior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105085
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105092
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105087
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105074
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105087
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Am testing a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105087
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
#include "analyzer-decls.h"
extern void inner_alloc (void **);
void * __attribute__((noinline))
outer_alloc (void)
{
void *result;
inner_alloc ();
return result;
}
void test_1 (void)
{
void *p,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105087
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
#include "analyzer-decls.h"
extern void *inner_alloc (void);
void * __attribute__((noinline))
outer_alloc (void)
{
return inner_alloc ();
}
void test_1 (void)
{
void *p, *q;
p = outer_alloc ();
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105087
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-03-28
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105074
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104308
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105057
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104308
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104308
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105057
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-03-25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95188
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|analyzer-unsafe-call-within |State explosion on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104860
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105022
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105022
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html#index-malloc-function-attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104954
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Does not enabling sanitizer improve things?
Removing the sanitizer options speeds up the non-analyzer part of the build,
reducing the overall wallclock time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104954
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104979
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105017
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104997
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105017
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-03-22
Ever confirmed|0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Given:
typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
void *custom_alloc (size_t sz) __attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104997
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104954
Bug 104954 depends on bug 104943, which changed state.
Bug 104943 Summary: Analyzer fails to purge state for local structs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104943
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104943
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Given:
#include
typedef struct boxed_ptr { void *value; } boxed_ptr;
boxed_ptr
boxed_malloc (size_t sz)
{
boxed_ptr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104854
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #8)
> (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #7)
> > Moving warnings into the analyzer and scaling it up to be able to run by
> > default, during development,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104955
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
I suspect that this issue is due to building a feasible_graph per saved
diagnostic, thus leading to an O(N^2) where as the function gets bigger, each
individual diagnostic requires more work. Perhaps
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104955
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Also takes a long time with -Wno-analyzer-double-free; perhaps we ought to
reject saved_diagnostics that will ultimately not be emitted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104954
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||104955
--- Comment #5 from David
: analyzer
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following artificial testcase for -fanalyzer seems to take at least several
minutes; perhaps much more:
#define DOUBLE_FREE() \
do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104954
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 52634
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52634=edit
Gzipped preprocessed source, unreduced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104954
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
I'm also seeing states with dozens of bindings for touched regions for
__UNIQUE_ID_ddebugN for various N:
clusters within :: {,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104954
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||104943
--- Comment #2 from David
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
According to my notes, attempting to build a Linux kernel with -fanalyzer, I
found that building
: analyzer
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
State purging only happens for SSA names, and locals of struct type aren't SSA
names.
Given e.g.:
struct boxed {
int value;
};
extern struct boxed boxed_add (struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95000
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||104940
--- Comment #6 from David
: analyzer
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
-fanalyzer currently has its own constraint_manager class for tracking the
constraints that hold at a point on an execution path, but it only verifies
some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104863
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104863
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104793
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104860
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Questions posted to GCC list about this: "__attribute__ ((access, ...)) vs
__attribute__ ((nonnull))"
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2022-March/238389.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104793
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
See also PR analyzer/104860, which covers this for
-Wanalyzer-possible-null-argument and -Wanalyzer-null-argument.
: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Similar to PR analyzer/104793, but relating to NULL/possibly NULL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104854
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101983
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104821
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #1)
Copy error:
result->m_b = malloc (sz_c);
should have been:
result->m_c = malloc (sz_c);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104821
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Example: https://godbolt.org/z/afvEd99qn
#include
struct s
{
void *m_a;
void *m_b;
void *m_c;
};
struct s *
make_s (size_t sz_a, size_t sz_b, size_t sz_c)
{
struct s *result = calloc (1, sizeof
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
PR analyzer/101983 reports a pair of -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak warnings at the
same program point, where both:
*res
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101983
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
As of GCC 10 (I believe):
__attribute__ ((access (MODE, REF_INDEX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103521
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104680
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|analyzer|c
Assignee|dmalcolm at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104680
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
> trunk.git/zlib/contrib/minizip/zip.c:1212:26: warning: Identical inner 'if'
> condition is always true. [identicalInnerCondition]
In zipOpenNewFileInZip4_64:
1206 │ #ifdef HAVE_BZIP2
1207 │ if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104680
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
> trunk.git/liboffloadmic/runtime/offload_engine.cpp:113:13: warning: Identical
> inner 'if' condition is always true. [identicalInnerCondition]
108 │ void Engine::init(void)
109 │ {
110 │ if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104680
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
> trunk.git/libffi/src/m32r/ffi.c:66:15: warning: Identical inner 'if'
> condition is always true. [identicalInnerCondition]
In ffi_prep_args:
56 │ for (i = ecif->cif->nargs, p_arg =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104680
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
> trunk.git/gcc/d/expr.cc:689:17: warning: Identical inner 'if' condition is
> always true. [identicalInnerCondition]
In 'void visit (CatExp *e)':
682 │ if (e->e1->op == EXP::concatenate)
683 │
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104680
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
> trunk.git/gcc/config/mn10300/mn10300.cc:888:8: warning: Identical inner 'if'
> condition is always true. [identicalInnerCondition]
In mn10300_expand_prologue:
877 │ /* Consider alternative
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104680
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
> trunk.git/gcc/config/avr/avr.cc:8674:22: warning: Identical inner 'if'
> condition is always true. [identicalInnerCondition]
In avr_out_fract:
8665 │ /* We need to consider to-be-discarded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103521
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Comparing the IR, the discrepancy looks like it relates to signedness of the
"char" type.
Works with --target=powerpc64le-linux-gnu if I add -fsigned-char to the command
line; otherwise it fails as noted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103521
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-03-02
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104434
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
OpenBLAS commit adding __attribute__((const)) to the decl:
https://github.com/xianyi/OpenBLAS/commit/1c1ffb0591186e50311670369dee2cb450980d9a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104434
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104434
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
OpenBLAS issue filed as https://github.com/xianyi/OpenBLAS/issues/3543
suggesting the use of __attribute__((const)) on LAPACKE_lsame.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104434
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
On rereading
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html
I think that "pure" isn't strong enough for the above example: the result of a
pure function is allowed to change between
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104576
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104560
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
801 - 900 of 3226 matches
Mail list logo
