||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks||90556
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
In the test cases in comment #0 the -Wreturn-local-addr warning is defeated by
inlining. By the time the warning sees the program the body of the static
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63272
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oleg.pekar.2017 at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98901
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Blocks|87403 |
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101751
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|testsuite |middle-end
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101604
Bug 101604 depends on bug 101289, which changed state.
Bug 101289 Summary: [11 Regression] bogus -Wvla-paramater warning when using
const for vla param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103703
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103703
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102697
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning for the test in comment #0 fails to trigger because of the hack
below in pointer-query.cc:
/* A helper of compute_objsize_r() to determine the size from MEM_REF
MREF. Return true on success
||2021-12-16
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Keywords||patch
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103751
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
|testsuite
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The reason for the unexpected warnings is that the test assumes that a struct
with just two members, a 32-bit int followed by a 16-bit int, is padded to
64-bits. That a valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 102722, which changed state.
Bug 102722 Summary: [Disgnostic]Xpass for gcc.dg/Wstringop-overflow-68.c after
O2 vectorization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102722
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101475
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment
||sparc-sun-solaris2.11
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-16
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Host|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu |
--- Comment #2
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-16
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I don't see any of the FAILs or XFAILs listed in comment #0 with cross
compilers for any of the Targets
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The two tests below show a coupled of failures with the m68k-unknown-linux-gnu
cross:
Running /src/gcc/master/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/dg.exp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91707
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
Here's a slightly simplified test case for GCC 12:
$ cat z.c && gcc -O2 -S -Wall -fsanitize=undefined z.c
extern void f (unsigned n, long[n], const long[n]);
void g (unsigned n, const long a[n])
{
long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91707
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2021-01-21 00:00:00 |2021-12-15
Known to fail|11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40635
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40635
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|bogus name and location in |[12 Regression] bogus name
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40635
--- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor ---
With the patch in comment #13 committed in
g:9695e1c23be5b5c55d572ced152897313ddb96ae GCC 12 prints the following for the
test case in comment #0:
pr40635.c: In function ‘server_init’:
pr40635.c:14:9:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54924
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90906
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80532
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 85651, which changed state.
Bug 85651 Summary: Invalid -Warray-bounds warning with -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85651
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85651
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103736
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 91457, which changed state.
Bug 91457 Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-4.C -std=gnu++98 (test for
warnings, line 25)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91457
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91457
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98166
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81592
Bug 81592 depends on bug 78969, which changed state.
Bug 78969 Summary: bogus snprintf truncation warning due to missing range info
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78969
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78969
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|8.0 |10.3.0, 11.2.0, 8.3.0,
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Keywords||patch
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-December/586856.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102036
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
The patch for pr99612 submitted last week resolves this problem as well:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99612
Referenced Bugs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99612
[Bug 99612] Remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103483
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning for the test case in comment #12 isn't directly related to ranges:
it's issued simply because the invalid statement is in the IL and not
eliminated by DCE (the secret functions don't let it).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103658
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Actually, what I was really after is trying to see if the analyzer would print
the conditionals involved in the subscript expressions. But in the simple test
case in comment #0 there are no conditionals.
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I came across this while comparing the middle end -Wuninitialized with
-Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103534
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
We discussed before (e.g., in PR 93971) the idea of annotating std::string with
some attribute telling the optimizer the internal pointer doesn't alias with
anything except for the this->_M_local_buf or the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 103215, which changed state.
Bug 103215 Summary: [12 regression] gcc generates unexpected warnings on
libx11-1.7.2: error: array subscript -2 is outside array bounds of since
r12-3124-g820f0940d7ace130
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103215
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The fix for pr103215 is too conservative and causes false negatives for past
the end accesses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101397
Bug 101397 depends on bug 103143, which changed state.
Bug 103143 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE due to infinite recursion in
pointer-query.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103143
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103143
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103332
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to fail||10.3.0, 11.2.0, 12.0, 9.3.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2021-12-08
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Confirmed on trunk plus GCC 9, 10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99612
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor
||56456
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The IL for the function is below. It seems quite inefficient compared to GCC
9.
void get_default_config.part.0 (const uint32_t id)
{
uint32_t error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103534
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, the warning does disappear when malloc() and free() are used instead of
operator new and delete. foo() also ends up much better optimized, even at
-O1:
__attribute__((abi_tag ("cxx11")))
struct string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103483
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|missed-optimization |
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96188
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100366
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.2.0, 12.0
Last
||2021-12-02
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Blocks||88443
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 103483, which changed state.
Bug 103483 Summary: context-sensitive ranges change triggers stringop-overread
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103483
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103483
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|NEW
||missed-optimization
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning is only issued at -O1. It's based on the statement in the IL and
the values or ranges of its arguments. In this case the IL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103469
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Bug 87403 depends on bug 88232, which changed state.
Bug 88232 Summary: Please implement -Winfinite-recursion
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88232
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88232
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103360
Bug 103360 depends on bug 96507, which changed state.
Bug 96507 Summary: missing -Waddress for member references
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96507
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96507
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79074
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.2.0, 12.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96507
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=103215
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I see the following unexpected failures with today's build of GCC 12:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/vector_subscript_1.f90 -O1 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103363
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.3.0, 11.2.0, 12.0,
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Since the conversion of the address of a reference to bool is diagnosed by
-Waddress, issuing a second warning for it isn't
CC| |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-22
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Confirmed with GCC 12. Since the warning is issued for non-member references
(the first case below) but not for members (the second case) I would consider
this a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103343
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103360
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-11-22
Keywords|
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This is a meta-bug to track false positives and negatives in the -Waddress
warning first introduced in GCC 4.2 (in r122136).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
GCC 12 (and prior, down to 10) warns for the test case:
$ cat pr78989.ii && gcc -S -Wall pr78989.ii
int
asan_poison_variables ()
{
return (asan_poison_variables &&
# 6 "gimplify.cpp" 3 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102867
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33925
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||12.0
Summary|[10/11/12
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Redeclaring a function that differs only in the qualifiers on the return type
is rejected by G++ in all C++ modes but not diagnosed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103332
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103310
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |c
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98503
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103292
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102759
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following test case was prompted by the discussion in the review of a
-Waddress enhancement:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/584749.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101702
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|--- |INVALID
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=102151
CC||msebor at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101702
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Martin clearly prefers some other fix, so I'll let him fix it himself.
I think I just misread your change. It doesn't cause the problem I was
concerned about.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102960
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|12.0|
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103223
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
Outside of code comments only the user-visible attribute access interface is
documented in the manual.
The main difference is probably that attribute access can be added by the user
for any pair of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103176
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
You're welcome and no need to apologize. We want to improve the warnings (and
the rest of the compiler) and these reports help us understand both the
limitations and opportunities for improvements, or at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102759
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103223
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
For an attribute access that's explicitly specified on the declaration of a
function I think these steps should work:
1) Call init_attr_rdwr_indices() to initialize the mapping for the original
function
at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103215
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||56456
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor
at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102009
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
gimple_builtin_call_types_compatible_p() returns false even for calls with
trivial mismatches like an int where a size_t is expected. I would prefer a
less restrictive test that doesn't prevent detecting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103223
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #0)
...
> > Martin, I wonder if if you would be OK with simply dropping the access when
> > function signature changes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 103176, which changed state.
Bug 103176 Summary: -foptimize-strlen causes stringop-overflow warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103176
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103176
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97048
Bug 97048 depends on bug 98465, which changed state.
Bug 98465 Summary: Bogus -Wstringop-overread with -std=gnu++20 -O2 and
std::string::insert
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.0|
Resolution|---
301 - 400 of 8151 matches
Mail list logo
