https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100463
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
So besides the hash_map GTY support being incomplete it also seems like ggc.h
support is missing something. The following change to the header lets the
whole patch below compile:
diff --git a/gcc/ggc.h b/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100463
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
As it turns out, the hash_map primary template is incomplete. Defining the
following member fixes that error only to expose another:
index 0779c930f0a..c07bd04704f 100644
--- a/gcc/hash-map.h
+++ b/gcc/hash
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100463
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
But suppose I change my mind and want to define a map from HWI_INT to int:
diff --git a/gcc/except.c b/gcc/except.c
index a7902bbd555..a47841cf395 100644
--- a/gcc/except.c
+++ b/gcc/except.c
@@ -149,6 +149,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100463
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Adding the two missing function like below fixes the errors.
diff --git a/gcc/except.c b/gcc/except.c
index a7902bbd555..913632f5199 100644
--- a/gcc/except.c
+++ b/gcc/except.c
@@ -149,6 +149,21 @@ static G
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Trying to use a simple hash_map specialization with GTY is a horrible
experience in debugging obscure template errors. For example, in the trivial
patch below I'd like to def
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100442
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 100430, which changed state.
Bug 100430 Summary: False positive for -Warray-bounds and pointers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100430
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100430
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 100325, which changed state.
Bug 100325 Summary: missing warning with -O0 on sprintf overflow with pointer
plus offset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100325
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100325
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98503
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100430
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100417
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC diagnoses calls to most allocation functions with a zero size except for
VLAs. The gimple-ssa-warn-alloca.c pass has code to diagnose zero-size VLAs
but it never triggers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100325
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor
-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The gimple-ssa-warn-alloca.c pass only both with and without optimization and
-Walloca triggers when it's enabled but the more useful -Walloca-larger-than
fails to dia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100307
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] spurious |[11 Regression] spurious
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80532
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org|msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
||diagnostic
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning here is expected (it was considered when the -Wmaybe-uninitialized
enhancement was added) but let me confirm this as a bug for the inconsistency
below and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86259
--- Comment #40 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #39)
> Martin - this is another one, is there sth simple safe that can be done on
> the 8 branch?
The patch series that resolved this while also avoiding the otherwis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100412
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The format of the array (VLA) in the note and warning below isn't quite right:
it should match the bound used in the sourc
||2021-05-04
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Let me change them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83819
Bug 83819 depends on bug 91914, which changed state.
Bug 91914 Summary: [9 Regression] Invalid strlen optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91914
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91914
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46224
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-10-01 00:00:00 |2021-5-3
Blocks|87403
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100406
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-05-03
Keywords|
-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This is a meta bug for false positives and negatives in and enhancements for
-Wmismatched-new-delete.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70834
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-01-03 00:00:00 |2021-5-3
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100403
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
|middle-end
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning behaves as designed
-Wformat-overflow |Bogus -Wformat-overflow for
|warning |a trailing zero-length
||array of a union
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100366
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||2021-05-03
Known to fail||11.1.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100399
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This is a meta-bug to track -Wplacement-new false positives, negatives, and
enhancements to the warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 100395, which changed state.
Bug 100395 Summary: Bogus -Wstringop-overflow warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100395
What|Removed |Added
---
|middle-end
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to fail||10.3.0
Keywords||diagnostic
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed
: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The C front end issues a spurious -Wreturn-type warning for return statements
with erroneous arguments in non-void functions. The
|ASSIGNED
Known to fail|7.3.0, 8.2.0, 9.0 |10.3.0, 11.0, 7.5.0, 8.4.0,
||9.3.0
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Reconfirming. I&#
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Clang provides -Wundefined-inline to control the warning about used inline
functions for which no definition has been provided. GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100250
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.0, 12.0 |11.1.0
Known to work|
at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/569126.html
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=100307
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords||diagnostic
Ever confirmed|0
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
At -O0, GCC correctly diagnoses the buffer overflow in f() but fails to detect
the same bug in g(). This covers the
y: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I expected the effect of the attribute and the #pragma on the calls to f() in
both g() and h() to be to inline them. They aren't. With #pragma clang
o
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Thus resolved as a dupe.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 99578 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sciresm.gccbugzilla at gmail
dot c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100307
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] Wrong|[11/12 Regression] spurious
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100297
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
A build of today's trunk of GCC 12 shows the following test failures in the
Fortran test suite:
Running /test/src/gcc/m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100272
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100250
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor
gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/568765.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69698
Bug 69698 depends on bug 100124, which changed state.
Bug 100124 Summary: Why is "flexible array member '...' in an otherwise empty
'...'" an issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100124
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100124
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100256
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Known to fail||11.0, 12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100250
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
This is a consequence of fixing pr97172 by clearing the VLA bounds encoded by
the front end in function attributes before the IL enters the middle end: they
VLA bounds aren't used to decide whether to diagnos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100262
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I should add: because mdesc is a member of another struct it can't have a
flexible array member, but as long as the enclosing struct mdesc_handle is not
embedded as a member in another struct it can have a tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100262
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |middle-end
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100197
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0
Status|UNCONFIR
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=98823
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Possibly related to pr98823?
confirmed|0 |1
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-21
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Confirmed with GCC 11 and test case
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70069
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||muecker at gwdg dot de
--- Comment #4 fro
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
Sounds like this is effectively the same request as pr70069 for which there's a
POC prototype:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-February/5
at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning bug was introduced in r262893 (GCC 10). A trivial test case is:
$ cat a.c && gcc -O2 -S -Wall a.c
int f (long i)
{
const char *p = "123";
p += i;
return p[-1];
}
a.c: In f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100137
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100115
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The reason why the warning tends to disappear in a simpler test case is because
of the limit (I just had it happen with my reduction). Don't spend more time
on it than you already have, I'll work with the at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100124
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||69698
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100124
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93100
Bug 93100 depends on bug 98508, which changed state.
Bug 98508 Summary: Sanitizer disable -Wall and -Wextra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98508
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93100
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||awdawdawdawq123123 at gmx dot
de
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 98508, which changed state.
Bug 98508 Summary: Sanitizer disable -Wall and -Wextra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98508
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98508
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|sanitizer |middle-end
Last reconfirmed|2020-01-09 00:00:00 |2021-4-16
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Depends on||98508
:00:00 |2021-4-16
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0, 4.5.3, 4.6.4,
||4.9.4, 5.5.0, 6.4.0, 7.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89697
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|9.2.0 |4.3.0, 4.8.4, 4.9.4, 5.5.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 89733, which changed state.
Bug 89733 Summary: [8/9/10/11 Regression] -Wuninitialized false positive with
unclear message pointing to a class name
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89733
What|Re
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
Confirming the unconditional uninitialized read in the IL for the test case in
attachment 4599 and GCC correctly diagnoses it:
;; Function
boost::spirit::lex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100126
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also|
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Reading an uninitialized trivial member of a struct that contains a member of a
type with a user
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88175
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74762
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0, 7.3.0, 8.3.0,
||10.2.0, 11.0, 4.6.4, 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
Severity|normal
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks||24639
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
I can confirm the warning but the test case is far too big for me to say
whether or not it&#
-27 00:00:00 |2021-4-15
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Reconfirmed with GCC 11 and a reduced/corrected test case and slightly enhanced
output:
$ cat pr91470.c && gcc -O2 -S -Wall pr91470.c
int i1;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86172
Bug 86172 depends on bug 89202, which changed state.
Bug 89202 Summary: missing -Wnonnull-dereference or -Wuninitialized for a
certain bug (CCP)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89202
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
--- Comment #96 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 89202 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 89202, which changed state.
Bug 89202 Summary: missing -Wnonnull-dereference or -Wuninitialized for a
certain bug (CCP)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89202
What|Removed |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89202
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90844
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180
Bug 89180 depends on bug 99972, which changed state.
Bug 99972 Summary: missing -Wunused-result on a call to a locally redeclared
warn_unused_result function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99972
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99972
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99420
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
|2018-04-30 00:00:00 |2021-4-15
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to fail|8.0.1 |10.2.0, 11.0, 8.3.0, 9.3.0
--- Comment #18 from Martin Sebor ---
Reconfirming with GCC 11.
Inverting the reachability expression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 89230, which changed state.
Bug 89230 Summary: Bogus uninited usage warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89230
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89230
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 7.3.0, 8.3.0, 9.2.0
Target Mile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81776
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0, 8.3.0, 9.3.0
Last reconfi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81714
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skvadrik at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
901 - 1000 of 8151 matches
Mail list logo
