[Bug analyzer/97110] [meta-bug] tracker bug for supporting C++ in -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97110 Bug 97110 depends on bug 97116, which changed state. Bug 97116 Summary: Fix argument numbering in C++ member function calls https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97116 What|Removed |Added

[Bug analyzer/97116] Fix argument numbering in C++ member function calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97116 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/95188] analyzer-unsafe-call-within-signal-handler shows wrong statement for signal registration event

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95188 --- Comment #11 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #10) > Created attachment 49293 [details] > supergraph Thanks. Compared to my testing, I'm seeing what appear to be differences in the inputs to the analyzer at the

[Bug analyzer/97394] Incorrect analyzer output for setjmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97394 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/93388] ensure -fanalyzer works with our C code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388 Bug 93388 depends on bug 93723, which changed state. Bug 93723 Summary: ICEs building ada with -fanalyzer https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93723 What|Removed |Added

[Bug analyzer/93723] ICEs building ada with -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93723 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug analyzer/93388] ensure -fanalyzer works with our C code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388 --- Comment #24 from David Malcolm --- As noted in https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/556203.html I was able to bootstrap using the method described in comment #0, albeit taking 7 hours (compared to the 45 minutes it normally

[Bug analyzer/97394] Incorrect analyzer output for setjmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97394 --- Comment #5 from David Malcolm --- Created attachment 49366 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49366=edit [PATCH] analyzer: don't use in tests [PR97394] Thanks for filing this bug. Does this patch fix the testsuite for

[Bug middle-end/94527] RFE: Add an __attribute__ that marks a function as freeing an object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94527 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug analyzer/95007] RFE: -fanalyzer should complain about writes to string literals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95007 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/97168] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/plugin/diagnostic-test-expressions-1.c, diagnostic-test-paths-2.c, location-overflow-test-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97168 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #2) [...] > (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #0) > > FAIL: gcc.dg/plugin/diagnostic-test-expressions-1.c > >

[Bug analyzer/97258] -fanalyze fails to analyze static callbacks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97258 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/97489] [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in ana::supergraph::get_node_for_function_entry(function*) const) since r10-5950-g757bf1dff5e8cee3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97489 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from David

[Bug testsuite/97168] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/plugin/diagnostic-test-expressions-1.c, diagnostic-test-paths-2.c, location-overflow-test-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97168 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED Ever confirmed|1

[Bug testsuite/97168] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/plugin/diagnostic-test-expressions-1.c, diagnostic-test-paths-2.c, location-overflow-test-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97168 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/97116] Fix argument numbering in C++ member function calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97116 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- The C++ FE has %P for printing parm indices, with index < 0 printed as "this"; implemented in cp/error.c: parm_to_string as called from cp_printer.

[Bug analyzer/97116] Fix argument numbering in C++ member function calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97116 --- Comment #2 from David Malcolm --- (using "i - is_method" as the value)

[Bug analyzer/97116] Fix argument numbering in C++ member function calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97116 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- is_method seems to be set by: if (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (fn)) == METHOD_TYPE) so perhaps we can simply reimplement this logic

[Bug tree-optimization/97424] Warn on invalid shift amount after inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97424 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/94169] warn for modifying getenv() result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94169 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug other/89863] [meta-bug] Issues in gcc that other static analyzers (cppcheck, clang-static-analyzer, PVS-studio) find that gcc misses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863 Bug 89863 depends on bug 94433, which changed state. Bug 94433 Summary: enhancement: 12 * constify some parameters https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94433 What|Removed |Added

[Bug analyzer/94433] enhancement: 12 * constify some parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94433 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/95188] analyzer-unsafe-call-within-signal-handler shows wrong statement for signal registration event

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95188 --- Comment #7 from David Malcolm --- Thanks. I see a similar deluge of "terminating analysis for this program point" warnings, but at different locations. My warnings eventually terminate with: bzip2.c:1537:31: warning: analysis bailed

[Bug analyzer/95188] analyzer-unsafe-call-within-signal-handler shows wrong statement for signal registration event

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95188 --- Comment #5 from David Malcolm --- Thanks Mark. What architecture are you on? When I do those steps, there's a long wait and then in terminates with no analyzer output. If I add -Wanalyzer-too-complex I see lots of warnings about

[Bug analyzer/95188] analyzer-unsafe-call-within-signal-handler shows wrong statement for signal registration event

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95188 --- Comment #9 from David Malcolm --- The above patch fixes (a) from comment #7 above, but (b), (c) and (d) still need fixing, so keeping this open for now.

[Bug analyzer/97115] Support for pre-main ctors in -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97115 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- "Static Initialization Order Fiasco" https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/siof https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/ctors#static-init-order

[Bug analyzer/96841] [11 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected integer_cst, have nop_expr in to_wide, at tree.h:5904

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96841 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/96646] [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in tree_class_check)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96646 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug jit/97169] [11 Regression] Most jit.dg tests segfaulting (modref_summaries finalizer?)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97169 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug analyzer/97111] Support for exception-handling within -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97111 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- References: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/exceptions https://itanium-cxx-abi.github.io/cxx-abi/abi-eh.html ("Itanium C++ ABI: Exception Handling")

[Bug analyzer/97258] New: -fanalyze fails to analyze static callbacks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97258 Bug ID: 97258 Summary: -fanalyze fails to analyze static callbacks Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug analyzer/94433] enhancement: 12 * constify some parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94433 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-09-28

[Bug analyzer/94433] enhancement: 12 * constify some parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94433 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- Thanks for filing this. I've been attempting to reproduce this, but I'm not getting any warnings out of cppcheck. That said, looking at git show

[Bug analyzer/97233] [11 Regression] ICE in deref_rvalue, at analyzer/region-model.cc:1465

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97233 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/94433] enhancement: 12 * constify some parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94433 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING --- Comment #4 from David

[Bug analyzer/97489] [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in ana::supergraph::get_node_for_function_entry(function*) const) since r10-5950-g757bf1dff5e8cee3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97489 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug analyzer/97514] [11 Regression] ICE in add_function_entry, at analyzer/engine.cc:1958

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97514 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/97568] -fanalyzer assumes that an extern const pointer is NULL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97568 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug analyzer/97614] MinGW-w64 pointer to long conversion loses precision error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97614 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/96608] Build failure due to cast to type long on MinGW

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brechtsanders at users dot sourcef

[Bug analyzer/96608] Build failure due to cast to type long on MinGW

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|WAITING

[Bug analyzer/96608] Build failure due to cast to type long on MinGW

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608 --- Comment #14 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #7) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > > What I mean is if you ever traversing a hashtable, the hash should not use > > the value of a pointer because it

[Bug analyzer/97568] -fanalyzer assumes that an extern const pointer is NULL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97568 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/96608] Build failure due to cast to type long on MinGW

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/98599] fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range with -Os -flto -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599 --- Comment #4 from David Malcolm --- I set them so that each stmt has a unique id, unique across all functions. I was assuming from the comments I quoted above in gimple.h that this is safe to do, but it sounds like from your comment that WPA

[Bug analyzer/98628] [11 Regression] ICE in get_or_create_cluster, at analyzer/store.cc:2040 since r11-6513-gbe6c485b24f2b47a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98628 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from David

[Bug jit/98586] libgccjit crashes with segmentation fault on failed gcc_assert

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98586 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- Patch posted as https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563266.html

[Bug analyzer/98628] [11 Regression] ICE in get_or_create_cluster, at analyzer/store.cc:2040 since r11-6513-gbe6c485b24f2b47a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98628 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/98564] valgrind error with -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98564 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/97074] -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak false positive when merging states

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97074 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/98580] ICE with -fanalyzer when LTO writes out error_mark_node for DECL_INITIAL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98580 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug analyzer/98580] ICE with -fanalyzer when LTO writes out error_mark_node for DECL_INITIAL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98580 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|ICE with -fanalyzer and |ICE with -fanalyzer when

[Bug jit/98586] libgccjit crashes with segmentation fault on failed gcc_assert

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98586 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug jit/97867] [11 Regression] thunk_info::release breaks function calls in libgccjit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97867 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug jit/97867] [11 Regression] thunk_info::release breaks function calls in libgccjit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97867 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|FAIL: |[11 Regression]

[Bug analyzer/98293] [11 Regression] ICE in get_subregion_within_ctor, at analyzer/store.cc:494

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98293 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug jit/87291] Add support for inline asm to libgccjit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug jit/96089] Support initializers for global variables.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96089 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- gcc_jit_global_set_initializer was added in GCC 11, which can initialize some global variables.

[Bug jit/97867] FAIL: test-combination.c.exe test-functions.c.exe test-pr66779.c.exe test-threads.c.exe killed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97867 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug analyzer/97893] New: Analyzer should only use CWE 690 when null ptr is from a function return

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97893 Bug ID: 97893 Summary: Analyzer should only use CWE 690 when null ptr is from a function return Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug analyzer/97893] Analyzer should only use CWE 690 when null ptr is from unchecked function return value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97893 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/97424] Warn on invalid shift amount after inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97424 --- Comment #5 from David Malcolm --- The above commit implements it as an analyzer warning. Should I close this out, or should we keep it open for the __builtin_warning approach?

[Bug other/93067] diagnostics are not aware of -finput-charset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93067 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090 --- Comment #8 from David Malcolm --- I tested with a cross build on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with target==powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu after various fixes for non-determinism (g:f635f0ce87d687b177b734968f18226d50499e75) and I'm not seeing the bogus

[Bug analyzer/97608] -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak false positive when returning p+1 instead of p

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97608 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug analyzer/97514] [11 Regression] ICE in add_function_entry, at analyzer/engine.cc:1958

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97514 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-10-21

[Bug analyzer/97668] [11 Regression] ICE in cmp_cst, at analyzer/svalue.cc:283

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97668 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug analyzer/97668] [11 Regression] ICE in cmp_cst, at analyzer/svalue.cc:283

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97668 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/97608] -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak false positive when returning p+1 instead of p

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97608 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/97411] [11 regression] bogus message from gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c after r11-3840

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97411 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- Looks like a dup of PR 97090 (though that one is on arm).

[Bug analyzer/97621] [11 regression] bogus message in gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c after r11-4434

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97621 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090 --- Comment #5 from David Malcolm --- PR 97621 reports it as starting on powerpc64*-linux-gnu with r11-4434, which was a fix for non-determinism in -fanalyzer, so perhaps this is a flaky test that the non-determinism fixes have made fail more

[Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090 --- Comment #6 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #1) > I see random results from one run to another, so it's likely that something > is not initialized correctly. I think it's due to places in -fanalyzer that

[Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090 --- Comment #7 from David Malcolm --- *** Bug 97411 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug analyzer/97411] [11 regression] bogus message from gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c after r11-3840

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97411 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/98223] gcc.dg/analyzer/pr94851-1.c XPASSes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98223 --- Comment #2 from David Malcolm --- I believe the existing false positive may relate to bug 97072, where the analyzer doesn't capture that the pointer to the malloc-ed buffer has been written to one of the fields (perhaps due to

[Bug analyzer/98223] gcc.dg/analyzer/pr94851-1.c XPASSes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98223 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- i.e. it rejects the path as infeasible since p_2 needs to be NULL and then non-NULL for the path conditions to be satisfied

[Bug analyzer/98073] error: in can_merge_p, at analyzer/region-model.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98073 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/97072] -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak false positive when writing through some pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97072 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/98223] gcc.dg/analyzer/pr94851-1.c XPASSes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98223 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/98564] valgrind error with -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98564 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/98599] fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range with -Os -flto -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever confirmed|0

[Bug analyzer/98599] fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range with -Os -flto -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599 --- Comment #2 from David Malcolm --- As far as I can tell, there are two invocations of lto1: wpa, then ltrans. The analyzer is run in the first invocation. The analyzer updates the gimple stmt uids; if I disable this updating the crash

[Bug analyzer/98679] Four functions could be marked "const".

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98679 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from David

[Bug c/98819] Wall Wformat-signedness suggests %u for %u

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98819 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug analyzer/98830] -Wanalyzer-null-argument on static_cast and inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98830 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- Why is it a false positive? The call to p->f () is a call to B* B::f (); and that could return NULL, hence the call to C::g would be passing NULL as 'this'. Arguably the message would be more readable as

[Bug analyzer/98830] -Wanalyzer-null-argument on static_cast and inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98830 --- Comment #2 from David Malcolm --- I looked at your examples in bug 98646, and the analyzer seems to me to be working correctly. Specifically: Analyzer correctly doesn't warn for: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646#c5

[Bug debug/98751] libgccjit fails in DWARF 5 handling with "`.Ldebug_loc2' is already defined" asm error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98751 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- s/generations/generation/g

[Bug debug/98751] New: libgccjit fails in DWARF 5 handling with "`.Ldebug_loc2' is already defined" asm error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98751 Bug ID: 98751 Summary: libgccjit fails in DWARF 5 handling with "`.Ldebug_loc2' is already defined" asm error Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug debug/98751] [11 Regression] libgccjit fails in DWARF 5 handling with "`.Ldebug_loc2' is already defined" asm error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98751 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Priority|P3

[Bug debug/98751] [11 Regression] libgccjit fails in DWARF 5 handling with "`.Ldebug_loc2' is already defined" asm error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98751 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug jit/98586] libgccjit crashes with segmentation fault on failed gcc_assert

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98586 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug analyzer/98599] fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range with -Os -flto -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599 --- Comment #8 from David Malcolm --- Saving and restoring the uids fixes the issue, so I'm working on a patch to the analyzer pass to do that.

[Bug analyzer/98679] Four functions could be marked "const".

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98679 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/98599] fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range with -Os -flto -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING --- Comment #9 from David

[Bug bootstrap/98696] [11 Regression] ICE when build x86_64-elf-cross compiler with MinGW-w64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98696 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-01-15 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug bootstrap/98696] [11 Regression] ICE when build x86_64-elf-cross compiler with MinGW-w64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98696 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- Created attachment 49976 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49976=edit Patch to fix the failing selftest Does the attached patch fix the build on Windows hosts?

[Bug bootstrap/98696] [11 Regression] ICE when build x86_64-elf-cross compiler with MinGW-w64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98696 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/98599] fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range with -Os -flto -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599 --- Comment #6 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5) > @David: Can you really reproduce that on x86_64-linux-gnu (I can't for some > reason)? Yes (with current master e.g. cfaaa6a1ca744c1a93fa08a3e7ab2a821383cac1),

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >