https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
--- Comment #24 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 54582 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzilla@poradnik-webmaster
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
--- Comment #22 from Martin Sebor ---
I've raised bug 77683 for the ICE on %lf.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
--- Comment #18 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Sep 21 01:39:27 2016
New Revision: 240298
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240298=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/49905 - Better sanity checking on sprintf src & dest to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
--- Comment #17 from Martin Sebor ---
I have tweaked the patch to print the following for the test case in comment
#13:
xyz.c: In function ‘f’:
xyz.c:10:46: warning: ‘%+03d’ directive output may be truncated between ‘3’ and
‘9’ bytes into a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
--- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> But 9 is maximum length just for the %+03d part, %02d with the limited VRP
> range is exactly 2 and then the '\0', so that is 12 maximum, 6 minimum.
Yes.
> So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
--- Comment #15 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #11)
> BTW, I tried a Linux kernel build and got this
>
> drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.c: In function ‘guid_show’:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #13)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #9)
> > I tried a build of the gcc fortran compiler and I found this warning:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #9)
> I tried a build of the gcc fortran compiler and I found this warning:
>
> ../../../src/trunk/libgfortran/intrinsics/date_and_time.c:173:33: warning:
> ‘%+03d’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
--- Comment #12 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #11)
> So it looks to me like format %Lx isn't handled.
Also, %lf seems to cause a crash.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
--- Comment #11 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> I think the warning code should compute both
> minimum and maximum,
I'd be happy for the code to compute minimum only and have maximum
postponed for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #9)
> I tried a build of the gcc fortran compiler and I found this warning:
>
> ../../../src/trunk/libgfortran/intrinsics/date_and_time.c:173:33: warning:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
--- Comment #9 from David Binderman ---
I tried a build of the gcc fortran compiler and I found this warning:
../../../src/trunk/libgfortran/intrinsics/date_and_time.c:173:33: warning:
‘%+03d’ directive output truncated while writing ‘9’ bytes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #7)
> Patch posted for review:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-07/msg00056.html
Fascinating stuff. Thanks.
I'll give it a good going over by throwing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-07/msg00056.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
--- Comment #5 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> 5.1 and 6.1 warn on the first six out of the ten buffer overflows, and on
> Linux the program aborts at runtime in __sprintf_chk.
>
> GCC still doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
Created attachment 38402
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38402=edit
C++ source code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-04
07:40:29 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 4 07:40:24 2011
New Revision: 177316
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=177316
Log:
PR middle-end/49905
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49905
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
24 matches
Mail list logo
