[Bug c/71613] Useful warnings silenced when macros from system headers are used

2024-05-15 Thread tavianator at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71613 Tavian Barnes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tavianator at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug sanitizer/113430] Trivial program segfaults intermittently with ASAN with large CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS in kernel configuration

2024-01-17 Thread tavianator at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113430 --- Comment #5 from Tavian Barnes --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3) > Updated the title to make it more precise. > > Note that even with Linux 6.7 the default value of CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS > is still 28 (32 is set by some distro

[Bug sanitizer/113430] New: Trivial program segfaults intermittently with ASAN since Linux 6.7

2024-01-16 Thread tavianator at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113430 Bug ID: 113430 Summary: Trivial program segfaults intermittently with ASAN since Linux 6.7 Product: gcc Version: 13.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/112748] memmove(ptr, ptr, n) call optimized out even at -O0 with -fsanitize=undefined

2023-11-28 Thread tavianator at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112748 --- Comment #2 from Tavian Barnes --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Does -fsanitize=address remove it? Yes, it's still removed with -fsanitize=address. While ASAN is necessary to check that the memory is really allocated,

[Bug c/112748] New: memmove(ptr, ptr, n) call optimized out even at -O0 with -fsanitize=undefined

2023-11-28 Thread tavianator at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112748 Bug ID: 112748 Summary: memmove(ptr, ptr, n) call optimized out even at -O0 with -fsanitize=undefined Product: gcc Version: 13.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/94787] Failure to detect single bit popcount pattern

2023-11-15 Thread tavianator at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94787 Tavian Barnes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tavianator at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug target/106952] Missed optimization: x < y ? x : y not lowered to minss

2022-09-15 Thread tavianator at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106952 --- Comment #2 from Tavian Barnes --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #1) > Note, your 'max' function is the same as 'min' (the issue remains with that > corrected). Whoops, thanks. Also I just noticed that GCC 12.2 does better

[Bug target/106952] New: Missed optimization: x < y ? x : y not lowered to minss

2022-09-15 Thread tavianator at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106952 Bug ID: 106952 Summary: Missed optimization: x < y ? x : y not lowered to minss Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal