[Bug tree-optimization/84047] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into an array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor --- Per comment 10, will not be backporting to release branches.
[Bug tree-optimization/84047] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into an array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047 > > Martin Sebor changed: > >What|Removed |Added > > Status|NEW |ASSIGNED >Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot > gnu.org > Summary|[6/7/8/9 Regression]|[6/7/8 Regression] missing >|missing -Warray-bounds on |-Warray-bounds on an >|an out-of-bounds index into |out-of-bounds index into an >|an array|array > > --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor --- > Committed into GCC 9.0 in r262893. All the test cases in this bug are now > diagnosed. Not sure if the fix will be approved for backporting though. Please do not backport patches that re-introduce (possibly false-positive) warnings, at least for such long-standing "regressions" like this.
[Bug tree-optimization/84047] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into an array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Summary|[6/7/8/9 Regression]|[6/7/8 Regression] missing |missing -Warray-bounds on |-Warray-bounds on an |an out-of-bounds index into |out-of-bounds index into an |an array|array --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor --- Committed into GCC 9.0 in r262893. All the test cases in this bug are now diagnosed. Not sure if the fix will be approved for backporting though.
[Bug tree-optimization/84047] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into an array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6) > I posted a patch for a similar issue reported in bug 83776 > (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg02144.html). It handles > MEM_REFs and diagnoses the test case in comment #0 (I must have missed that > when I opened this bug) but it doesn't handle the test case in comment #2. still worth adding the "patch" keyword to this one anyways, even if it only handles one of the test cases.
[Bug tree-optimization/84047] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into an array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com Target Milestone|6.5 |9.0
[Bug tree-optimization/84047] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into an array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- I posted a patch for a similar issue reported in bug 83776 (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg02144.html). It handles MEM_REFs and diagnoses the test case in comment #0 (I must have missed that when I opened this bug) but it doesn't handle the test case in comment #2.
[Bug tree-optimization/84047] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into an array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047 --- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez --- Created attachment 43259 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43259=edit proposed UNTESTED patch (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > I don't think we want to be adding new cases where -Warray-bounds will warn > at this point, this warning has very high false positive rate and it is > simply too late in the release cycle for that IMNSHO. I'd retarget all > similar PRs for GCC9. Hmmm... this may be easy pickings though. It looks like before the regression we had an ARRAY_REF we could diagnose: D.2720_5 = "12345678"[1073741824]; But now this is represented as: _1 = MEM[(const char *)"12345678" + 1073741824B]; I think we can just allow check_array_bounds() to handle MEM_REF's and everything should just work. The attached untested patch fixes the PR. However, if you think this is not worth pursuing, I can drop this and retarget this bug to GCC 9. Your call Jakub.
[Bug tree-optimization/84047] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into an array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- I don't think we want to be adding new cases where -Warray-bounds will warn at this point, this warning has very high false positive rate and it is simply too late in the release cycle for that IMNSHO. I'd retarget all similar PRs for GCC9.
[Bug tree-optimization/84047] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into an array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2018-01-26 CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org, ||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #3 from Aldy Hernandez --- Confirmed, and confirmed that the regression started with r161655.
[Bug tree-optimization/84047] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into an array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.5
[Bug tree-optimization/84047] [6/7/8 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into an array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84047
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] missing |[6/7/8 Regression] missing
|-Warray-bounds on a |-Warray-bounds on an
|negative offset into a |out-of-bounds index into an
|string |array
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Another test case with the same root cause, but this one with an array and a
small positive index:
char a[8];
int f (void)
{
const char *s = a + 4;
int i = 8;
return s[i]; // missing -Warray-bounds
}
