[Bug other/100463] many errors using GTY and hash_map

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

[Bug other/100463] many errors using GTY and hash_map

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 +++

[Bug other/100463] many errors using GTY and hash_map

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

[Bug other/100463] many errors using GTY and hash_map

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

[Bug other/100463] New: many errors using GTY and hash_map

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100463 Bug ID: 100463 Summary: many errors using GTY and hash_map Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: other

[Bug tree-optimization/100442] Spurious -Wstringop-overread error with odd boundaries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100442 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|WAITING

[Bug tree-optimization/56456] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Warray-bounds

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

[Bug tree-optimization/100430] False positive for -Warray-bounds and pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100430 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/85741] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wformat-overflow

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

[Bug middle-end/100325] missing warning with -O0 on sprintf overflow with pointer plus offset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100325 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to fail|

[Bug middle-end/98503] [11/12 regression] -Warray-bounds false positive with global variables at -O2 since r11-3306-g3f9a497d1b0dd9da

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

[Bug tree-optimization/100430] False positive for -Warray-bounds and pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100430 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/100417] False positive -Wmaybe-uninitalized with malloc.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100417 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug middle-end/100426] New: missing warning for zero-size VLA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100426 Bug ID: 100426 Summary: missing warning for zero-size VLA Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end

[Bug middle-end/100325] missing warning with -O0 on sprintf overflow with pointer plus offset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100325 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor

[Bug middle-end/100425] New: missing -Walloca-larger-than with -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100425 Bug ID: 100425 Summary: missing -Walloca-larger-than with -O0 Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug middle-end/100307] [11 Regression] spurious -Wplacement-new with negative pointer offset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100307 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[11/12 Regression] spurious |[11 Regression] spurious

[Bug tree-optimization/80532] warning on pointer access after free

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 ---

[Bug tree-optimization/100417] False positive -Wmaybe-uninitalized with malloc.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100417 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Blocks|

[Bug tree-optimization/86259] [8 Regression] min(4, strlen(s)) optimized to strlen(s) with -flto

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

[Bug testsuite/100412] [11/12 regression] PASS & FAIL for same test aarch64-qemu: gcc.dg/Wvla-parameter-[23].c pr?????

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100412 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c/100420] New: unspecified VLA bound formatted as [0] instead of [*] in -Wvla-parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100420 Bug ID: 100420 Summary: unspecified VLA bound formatted as [0] instead of [*] in -Wvla-parameter Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/100412] [11/12 regression] PASS & FAIL for same test aarch64-qemu: gcc.dg/Wvla-parameter-[23].c pr?????

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100412 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/83819] [meta-bug] missing strlen optimizations

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

[Bug tree-optimization/91914] [9 Regression] Invalid strlen optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91914 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/46224] Enhancement: Issue warning when matching placement delete operator is missing

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

[Bug middle-end/100406] bogus/missing -Wmismatched-new-delete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100406 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-05-03 Keywords|

[Bug middle-end/100406] New: bogus/missing -Wmismatched-new-delete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100406 Bug ID: 100406 Summary: bogus/missing -Wmismatched-new-delete Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/70834] Incorrect warning for placement new when conditionally used

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|

[Bug middle-end/100403] Bogus "function may return address of local variable" warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100403 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug middle-end/100403] Bogus "function may return address of local variable" warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100403 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Component|c

[Bug middle-end/100401] Bogus -Wformat-overflow for a trailing zero-length array of a union

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100401 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.1.0 Summary|Bogus

[Bug tree-optimization/100366] spurious warning - std::vector::clear followed by std::vector::insert(vec.end(), ...) with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100366 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/100370] [11/12 Regression] Incorrect warning for placement new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100370 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||100399 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/100399] bogus/missing -Wplacement-new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100399 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/100399] New: bogus/missing -Wplacement-new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100399 Bug ID: 100399 Summary: bogus/missing -Wplacement-new Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug tree-optimization/88443] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wstringop-overflow warnings

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

[Bug middle-end/100395] Bogus -Wstringop-overflow warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100395 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||88443 Component|c

[Bug c/100365] New: bogus -Wreturn-type with a return statement with an erroneous expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100365 Bug ID: 100365 Summary: bogus -Wreturn-type with a return statement with an erroneous expression Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/74765] missing uninitialized warning (parenthesis, TREE_NO_WARNING abuse)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74765 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2019-02-03 00:00:00 |2021-4-29 Status|NEW

[Bug c/100343] New: add -Wundefined-inline for inline function is used but not defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100343 Bug ID: 100343 Summary: add -Wundefined-inline for inline function is used but not defined Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/100250] [11 Regression] ICE related to -Wmaybe-uninitialized

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|

[Bug middle-end/100307] [11/12 Regression] spurious -Wplacement-new with negative pointer offset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100307 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug middle-end/100325] missing warning with -O0 on sprintf overflow with pointer plus offset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100325 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug middle-end/100325] New: missing warning with -O0 on sprintf overflow with pointer plus offset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100325 Bug ID: 100325 Summary: missing warning with -O0 on sprintf overflow with pointer plus offset Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug middle-end/100323] New: #pragma and attribute optimize don't enable inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100323 Bug ID: 100323 Summary: #pragma and attribute optimize don't enable inlining Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/100309] [11/12 regression] false positive -Wstringop-overflow/stringop-overread/array-bounds on reinterpret_cast'd integers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100309 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |middle-end CC|

[Bug middle-end/99578] gcc-11 -Warray-bounds or -Wstringop-overread warning when accessing a pointer from integer literal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sciresm.gccbugzilla at gmail dot c

[Bug middle-end/100307] [11/12 Regression] spurious -Wplacement-new with negative pointer offset

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

[Bug fortran/100297] FAIL: gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_1.f90 gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100297 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug fortran/100297] New: FAIL: gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_1.f90 gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100297 Bug ID: 100297 Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/allocatable_function_1.f90 gfortran.dg/reshape_8.f90 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug testsuite/100272] some incomplete dg-commands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100272 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug tree-optimization/100250] [11/12 Regression] ICE related to -Wmaybe-uninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100250 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor

[Bug middle-end/90904] vec assignment and copying undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90904 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug c++/69698] [meta-bug] flexible array members

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

[Bug c++/100124] Why is "flexible array member '...' in an otherwise empty '...'" an issue?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100124 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/100256] spurious stringop-overflow warning with memset(..., sizeof(dest)) on variable-length array at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100256 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/100250] [11/12 Regression] ICE related to -Wmaybe-uninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100250 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/100250] [11/12 Regression] ICE related to -Wmaybe-uninitialized

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

[Bug middle-end/100262] warning on sparc64: 'strcmp' reading 1 or more bytes from a region of size 0 [-Werror=stringop-overread]

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

[Bug middle-end/100262] warning on sparc64: 'strcmp' reading 1 or more bytes from a region of size 0 [-Werror=stringop-overread]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100262 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |middle-end Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/100197] g++ emits spurious Wstring-compare warnings on strcmp()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100197 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0

[Bug testsuite/100203] Dejagnu timeouts don't work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100203 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/84476] [[nodiscard]] ignored on virtual functions accessed through pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84476 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0, 8.3.0, 9.2.0 Ever

[Bug middle-end/70069] Uninitialized value default to zero, plus warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70069 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||muecker at gwdg dot de --- Comment #4

[Bug middle-end/99797] accessing uninitialized automatic variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99797 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/100137] [10/11 Regression] -Warray-bounds false positive on varying offset plus negative

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100137 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/100137] [10/11 Regression] -Warray-bounds false positive on varying offset plus negative

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100137 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Ever

[Bug tree-optimization/100115] Bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning with -O3

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

[Bug c++/100124] Why is "flexible array member '...' in an otherwise empty '...'" an issue?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100124 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||69698 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor

[Bug c++/100124] Why is "flexible array member '...' in an otherwise empty '...'" an issue?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100124 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/93100] gcc -fsanitize=address inhibits -Wuninitialized

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

[Bug middle-end/93100] gcc -fsanitize=address inhibits -Wuninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93100 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||awdawdawdawq123123 at gmx dot de ---

[Bug middle-end/24639] [meta-bug] bug to track all Wuninitialized issues

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

[Bug middle-end/98508] Sanitizer disable -Wall and -Wextra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98508 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/93100] gcc -fsanitize=address inhibits -Wuninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93100 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.2.1, 11.0, 9.3.0 CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/89976] [9/10/11 Regression] missing -Wuninitialized for struct member due to sra and TREE_NO_WARNING

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89976 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |tree-optimization

[Bug tree-optimization/89697] [9/10/11 Regression] SRA prevents -Wuninitialized warning

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,

[Bug middle-end/24639] [meta-bug] bug to track all Wuninitialized issues

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

[Bug regression/89733] [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 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/100126] missing -Wuninitialized using a trivial member of class with another nontrivial member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100126 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic See Also|

[Bug tree-optimization/100126] New: missing -Wuninitialized using a trivial member of class with another nontrivial member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100126 Bug ID: 100126 Summary: missing -Wuninitialized using a trivial member of class with another nontrivial member Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/88175] GCC should not warn within implicit copy-constructor (or should report the implicit function in a special way)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88175 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/74762] [8/9/10/11 Regression] missing uninitialized warning (C++, parenthesized expr, TREE_NO_WARNING)

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,

[Bug tree-optimization/63446] dangling reference results in confusing diagnostic from -Wuninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63446 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2014-10-03 00:00:00 |2021-4-16 Known to fail|

[Bug tree-optimization/100115] Bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100115 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |tree-optimization CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/91470] [10/11 Regression] bogus uninitialized warning in trans-intrinsic.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91470 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0 Last

[Bug middle-end/86172] [meta-bug] issues with -Wnull-dereference

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

[Bug tree-optimization/18501] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Missing 'used uninitialized' warning (CCP)

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. ***

[Bug middle-end/24639] [meta-bug] bug to track all Wuninitialized issues

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

[Bug tree-optimization/89202] missing -Wnonnull-dereference or -Wuninitialized for a certain bug (CCP)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89202 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/90844] missing -Wmaybe-uninitialized with -flto and optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90844 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c/89180] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wunused warnings

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

[Bug c/99972] missing -Wunused-result on a call to a locally redeclared warn_unused_result function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99972 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0 Resolution|---

[Bug c/99420] [11 Regression] bogus -Warray-parameter on a function redeclaration in function scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99420 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/85563] [8/9/10/11 regression] -Wmaybe-uninitialized false alarm regression with __builtin_unreachable and GCC 8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85563 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Last

[Bug middle-end/24639] [meta-bug] bug to track all Wuninitialized issues

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

[Bug middle-end/89230] Bogus uninited usage warning

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

[Bug tree-optimization/81776] missing sprintf optimization due to pointer escape analysis

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

[Bug c++/81714] incorrect location for uninitialised variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81714 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||skvadrik at gmail dot com --- Comment #3

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >