https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 101300, which changed state.
Bug 101300 Summary: -fsanitize=undefined suppresses -Wuninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101300
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101300
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to fail|12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 93437, which changed state.
Bug 93437 Summary: [9 Regression] bogus -Warray-bounds on protobuf generated
code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93437
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93437
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.5 |10.0
Resolution|---
|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
I have suppressed the warnings in r12-2401.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101520
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-19
Component|other
at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|middle-end |testsuite
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The failures should all be fixed by r12-2372. The xfails remain until I either
fix
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Even with pr97027 resolved -Wstringop-overflow is not issued consistently (on
all targets) for buffer overflow when storing a larger compound literal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 97027, which changed state.
Bug 97027 Summary: missing warning on buffer overflow storing a larger scalar
into a smaller array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97548
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Fixed for GCC 12.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|12.0|
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101397
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The store in the function below overflows the buffer and should be diagnosed by
-Wstringop-overflow (which is enabled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 101436, which changed state.
Bug 101436 Summary: Yet another bogus "array subscript is partly outside array
bounds"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101436
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101436
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100137
Bug 100137 depends on bug 101374, which changed state.
Bug 101374 Summary: [12 Regression] bootstrap failure varpool.c:490:19: error:
array subscript 'varpool_node[0]' is partly outside array bounds of
'varpool_node [0]' [-Werror=array-bounds]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101361
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning depends on the optimizer for eliminating unreachable code but not
all of it can be. For example, the abort below isn't. In theory it could be
but with longer strings that require memory
||jwakely.gcc at gmail dot com,
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Blocks||97048
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101397
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
I'm tracking this in pr101397.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 101397 ***
|--- |12.0
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Keywords||patch
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from Martin
: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The strlen pass only folds the result in f() but not the equivalent in g(). It
should be able to handle both.
$ cat a.c && gcc -O2 -S -fdump-tree-optimi
to the
|1 |result of stpcpy minus 1
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-09
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This is reduced from a recent Glibc build with GCC 12 which shows the warning
below:
In function ‘nis_local_group’,
inlined from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Something like the patch in comment 3 to handle the overflow in
tree-ssa-strlen.c is still needed. Otherwise GCC does issue a -Warray-bounds
but that's enabled only with -Wall (the test expects buffer
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-09
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Could you please reduce the warning to a standalone test case (or translation
unit) and attach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 97027, which changed state.
Bug 97027 Summary: missing warning on buffer overflow storing a larger scalar
into a smaller array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101379
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
I have no easy way to test the patch so it might need a little tweaking. It
looks like the __kernel_helper_version macro is used as an lvalue so the macro
needs to expand to a call to the
||2021-7-8
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Component|other |testsuite
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 101372, which changed state.
Bug 101372 Summary: [12 Regression] -Warray-bounds in gcc/cp/module.cc causing
bootstrap failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Summary|[12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101379
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Christophe, does this patch work for you? Another alternative is to add
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored around the dereference.
diff --git a/libatomic/config/linux/arm/host-config.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks for the confirmation!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 100451, which changed state.
Bug 100451 Summary: g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-20.C XPASSes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100451
What|Removed |Added
|RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Fixed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101379
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
For the test case the warning sees this:
int varpool_node::_ZN12varpool_node16get_availabilityEv.part.0 (struct
varpool_node * const this)
{
...
struct symtab_node * _7;
struct varpool_node * _12;
|1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-08
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks for the reduced test case!
||87403
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-07
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor
|1
Keywords||error-recovery,
||ice-on-invalid-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 97027, which changed state.
Bug 97027 Summary: missing warning on buffer overflow storing a larger scalar
into a smaller array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100137
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.0|11.1.0
Summary|[10/11/12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99121
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.0|11.1.0
Summary|[9/10/11/12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101363
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101363
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
No, you didn't. I missed the one %K in aarch64.c. Let me commit the fix below
to fix the bootstrap error. I'm still not sure what the deal is with the tests
though.
diff --git
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101363
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
I don't see the ICE with my cross-compiler and the stack trace doesn't
correspond to the latest sources (there's no call to error() at
gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-builtins.c:1588; a call to error_at() that
,
||4.8.4, 4.9.4, 5.5.0, 6.4.0,
||7.2.0, 8.3.0, 9.1.0
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 86650, which changed state.
Bug 86650 Summary: -Warray-bounds missing inlining context
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86650
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86650
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101300
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-02
Blocks||24639
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Component|sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101292
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97548
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Known to fail|
||2021-07-02
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Compiling the test case with -Winline shows the problem:
pr101279.c: In function ‘foo’:
pr101279.c:2:19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
|NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2021-07-01
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Confirmed. The root cause is the same as in pr97548 even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100685
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101272
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101272
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] error: |[12 Regression] error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 74765, which changed state.
Bug 74765 Summary: missing uninitialized warning (parenthesis, TREE_NO_WARNING
abuse)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74765
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74765
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99251
Bug 99251 depends on bug 74762, which changed state.
Bug 74762 Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] missing uninitialized warning (C++,
parenthesized expr, TREE_NO_WARNING)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74762
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 74762, which changed state.
Bug 74762 Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] missing uninitialized warning (C++,
parenthesized expr, TREE_NO_WARNING)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74762
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74762
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Summary|[9/10/11/12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99959
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
No, that change (r12-1805 and related) doesn't affect these cases (and wasn't
expected to; the warning is still suppressed in the esra pass).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89976
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
No, that change (r12-1804 and related) doesn't affect these cases (and wasn't
expected to).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101219
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The code fails in the assert below where binfo is null. The full stack trace
follows. The difference is that before r12-1804 warn_for_null_address() would
return without doing anything because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101204
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
gtype-desc.c is a generated file. There's also r12-1096. Without it, r12-1801
wouldn't compile.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101216
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101134
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
I don't need to be convinced that it would be nice to be able to differentiate
between certain bugs and possible ones. The text of this class of warnings
already does differentiate between "may
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101134
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Changing the warning text from "does X" to "may do X" wouldn't help because all
instances of it (or all warnings) would have to use the latter form, and that's
already implied by the former. Every GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101134
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
It wouldn't be right to change the wording of just one warning because the
problem applies to all flow based diagnostics. They all depend on various
optimizations that propagate constants, add or remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100137
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101134
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning architecture doesn't make it possible to distinguish between the
two situations you describe. No flow-sensitive GCC warning points out a
certain bug: every instance needs to be viewed as only a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101134
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18487
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98571
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.2
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100719
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.2|12.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100406
Bug 100406 depends on bug 100876, which changed state.
Bug 100876 Summary: [11 Regression] -Wmismatched-new-delete should understand
placement new when it's not inlined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100876
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100876
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100783
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100732
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95507
Bug 95507 depends on bug 100684, which changed state.
Bug 100684 Summary: [11 Regression] spurious -Wnonnull with -O1 on a C++ lambda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100684
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100684
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100619
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 100574, which changed state.
Bug 100574 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: in size_remaining, at builtins.c:413
with -O3 -ftracer -fno-tree-dominator-opts -fno-tree-fre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100574
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100574
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100399
Bug 100399 depends on bug 100307, which changed state.
Bug 100307 Summary: [11 Regression] spurious -Wplacement-new with negative
pointer offset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100307
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100307
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 100250, which changed state.
Bug 100250 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE related to -Wmaybe-uninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100250
What|Removed |Added
701 - 800 of 8151 matches
Mail list logo
