https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #8 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 36052
-- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36052action=edit
To be compiled with -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
At line 2473 of ipa-prop.c I have
if (!ctx.useless_p ())
I changed it into
if (!ctx.useless_p () || !dst_ctx)
Now the sanitizer runtime error message disappears.
I am attaching
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
I just found the same issue at line 2479:
dst_ctx-combine_with (ctx);
dst_ctx is again NULL
Maybe the same patch should be applied here? Namely:
if (!dst_ctx
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64327
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
For your convenience I repeat here the reproducer:
/* from gcc file fixopts.c */
/* must be compiled with -O2 */
/*gcc-5.1.0/gcc/rtlanal.c:4911:48: runtime error: shift exponent
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
//must be compiled with -O2 , or -O[1] -fdevirtualize
//ipa-prop.c:2479:30: runtime error: member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
Yes I applied the fix and it now works on all the gcc testsuite.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64327
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
In 5.2.0 too.
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
! gcc-5.2.0/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c:5701:19: runtime error: member call on
null pointer of type 'struct vec
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/* must be compiled with -O */
/* in noce_get_alt_condition */
/*gcc-5.2.0/gcc/ifcvt.c:1907: runtime error: signed integer overflow:
9223372036854775807 + 1 cannot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
Did you put the gcc_assert line in the source?
If you have not a sanitized version you will not see the null pointer
dereferencing
Anyway this is what you asked me: (please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com ---
1) No explicit options, just the default ones, -S will suffice.
2) Sorry, I did not specify the target is x86-64, but I got the same with -m32
3) sub is not needed, the code should
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
This appears to be a duplicate for 64327
Sanitized version of gcc 5.1.0 shows a bug in the following
/* from gcc file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64327
Vittorio Zecca zeccav at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67498
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Sorry, I am traveling now, I'll look at it when I am back home, end of
March 2016?
Maybe you better close it, I think at that time gcc 6 will be available.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67496
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I am traveling now, I cannot check the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67497
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Traveling now, I cannot check it.
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
In libgcc2.c:1842
int m;
unsigned int n = m 0 ? -m : m;
when m==-2147483648
I get the following message from the sanitizer
/home
: testsuite
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Running struct-layout-1_generate.c the sanitized version of gcc finds two
undefined statements:
At line 1081
m = (1ULL e-len) - 1;
I get
/home/vitti/gcc-5.2.0/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50069
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still on gfortran 5.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50537
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50539
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50555
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
--- Comment #17 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I found it fixed in 5.2.0
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/*sanitizer message*/
/*gcc-5.2.0/gcc/c/c-typeck.c:8266:42: runtime error: load of address
0x7ffc8682b570 with insufficient space for an object of type 'long int'*/
/*gcc-5.2.0/gcc/c
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
//g++ 5.2.0 sanitizer detects dereferencing a NULL pointer
//gcc-5.2.0/gcc/tree-cfg.c:1342:38: runtime error: member access within null
pointer of type 'struct basic_block_def'
//must
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67379
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
There is a similar bug in gcc/function.c:254
unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT size = FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD ? -offset : offset;
when offset == -9223372036854775808
Should I open a new bug?
Priority: P3
Component: ada
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
While running on the testsuite a sanitized version of the ada compiler
I got the following
RUN c52103x
,.,. C52103X ACATS 2.5 15-09-06 20:52:03^M
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 36302
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36302=edit
C file to compile with g++ -Os -fPIC -std=gnu++11
// g++ -Os -f
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
//g++ references freed storage
//sanitizer message: heap-use-after-free
//referenced at options-save.c:3556 "|| s
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
//g++ -ftracer -O2
//g++ 5.2.0 undefined left shift
//../../gcc-5.2.0/gcc/combine.c:7696:40: runtime error: shift exponent -1 is
negative
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/* gcc sanitizer runtime error message*/
/* gcc/expmed.c:3026:42: runtime error: signed integer overflow:
-9223372036854775808 - 1 cannot be represented in type 'long int [3
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/* must be compiled with -O2 -g */
/* sanitizer runtime error message
* gcc-5.2.0/gcc/dwarf2out.c:1532:45: runtime error
Priority: P3
Component: ada
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The sanitizer detects overlapping strings in the assignemnt statement
DR.Data (1 .. Source'Length) := Source;
in a-strunb.adb:1456
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
!gcc-5.2.0/gcc/fortran/data.c:181:32: runtime error: null pointer passed as
argument 2, which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50555
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Sorry, you are right, the compiler should emit an error message
instead it wrongly
accepts the code. I was confused, this time the right behaviour is to
emit an error message.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50541
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Bug still there in 5.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58233
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still there on 5.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
--- Comment #19 from Vittorio Zecca ---
ICE still there in 5.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50402
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
! gfortran ICE in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor at fortran/trans-array.c
interface
function f()
pointer f
end
end interface
type t
real,pointer :: p(:)
end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50406
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
! gfortran produces weird ld message undefined reference to `___MOD_str'
module m
contains
function fun(i)
character(2), PARAMETER:: str(1) = (/'SD'/)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
While building the Fedora 21
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
!gcc-5.2.0/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c:2223:27: runtime error: load of value 124,
which is not a valid
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
!gcc-5.2.0/gcc/fortran/interface.c:2705:33: runtime error: load of value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> What happens to performance? Simply making changes to
> make sanitizer happy seems rather questionable. It's clear
> from context that if base_name == NULL, then
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
During make check-fortran in gcc build the sanitizer complains
that a null pointer is passed to memcpy
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: objc
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Running 'make check' on objc I get many sanitizer messages as in
/home/vitti/gcc-5.2.0/libobjc/class.c:186:3: runtime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67540
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I believe the test case is erroneous. NULL pointers are dereferenced
in subroutines
source_check and source_check4:
if(str4 == '12a56b78') call abort()
and
if(str4 == 4_'12a56b78') call abort()
are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67540
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
On the same line
CFLAGS="-fsanitize=undefined -Og -g -fno-omit-frame-pointer"
CXXFLAGS=$CFLAGS LDFLAGS="-lubsan -ldl -lpthread"
/home/vitti/gcc-5.2.0/configure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67540
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
str4 used to point to str so the "logic" seems to check that str4 does
not follow any more str.
But the test is erroneous.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67567
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Unfortunately I do not master gdb and gcc internals enough for that.
The check costs two instructions on my x86-64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67535
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca ---
The cost of adding "if(base_name_len)" is two x86-64 machine instructions
cmpl$0, -20(%rbp)
je .L2
Six instructions follow then
call memcpy
which is not exactly a NOP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67484
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|5.2.0 |6.0
--- Comment #1 from Vittorio Zecca
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
libstdc++-v3/testsuite/27_io/basic_stringbuf/seekoff/char/1.cc:92
strmsz_2 = strb_01.sputn(" ravi sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67588
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I believe that
use_list = module_list;
at line module.c:805 is useless and can be expunged.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67588
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
use_list is local to the function gfc_match_submodule and it is already
reinitialized in the for statement at line 806.
So there is a duplication.
On return at line 812 it is then lost.
Maybe optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64920
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I propose the following fix at line 688 of regex.c in trunk
change
(destination) += SIGN_EXTEND_CHAR (*((source) + 1)) << 8 ; \
into
(*((source) + 1)) >= 0 ? (destination) += SIGN_EXTEND_CHAR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66827
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
(In reply to Mikhail Maltsev from comment #1)
> gcc/haifa-sched.c:1164:24
> gcc/haifa-sched.c:1442:26
> gcc/sched-deps.c:112:20
>
> are caused by the following macro definition in gcc/sched-int.h:243:
>
Component: libfortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Running "make check" after building gcc the sanitizer complains that
at unix.c:497
memcpy (buf, s->buffer + (s->logical_offset - s->bu
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The sanitizer complains on libgfortran.h:408
((~((index_type) 0) >> GFC_DTYPE_SIZE
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
During "make check" a null pointer is sometimes passed to memcpy in
write.c:1877
memcpy (ext_name, base_name, base_name_len)
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Running make check in many test cases the sanitizer complains
../../gcc/gcc/lto-streamer-in.c:289:39
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67534
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I tested on trunk. The sanitizer message disappeared.
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
While running make check-fortran on submodule_4.f08 the sanitizer complains
that in pretty-print.h:142
obstack_grow (buff->obst
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Let us look at module.c:800 and next:
use_list = module_list;
for (; module_list->next; use_list = use_list->next)
{
module_list = use_list->next;
free
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67484
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Uros, I applied your patch and the sanitizer message disappeared.
Is this still an UNCONFIRMED bug?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67540
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
The pointer is NULL but the length is zero.
The test case is allocate_deferred_char_scalar_1.exe
on all eight combinations. As in
Executing on host:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67527
--- Comment #1 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Same at line 383
#define IOPARM_DT_IONML_SET (1 << 31)
should be
#define IOPARM_DT_IONML_SET (1u<< 31)
ortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
In io.h:314
#define IOPARM_INQUIRE_HAS_FLAGS2 (1 << 31)
should be
#define IOPARM_INQUIRE_HAS_FLAGS2 (1u<< 31)
to make the sanitizer happy.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58566
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66827
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I am traveling now so I cannot double check your hint.
What do you suggest?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67484
--- Comment #14 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I still get it in g++ 5.3.0
You may reproduce this one with a version of g++ compiled with
-fsanitize=address
[vitti cc]$/home/vitti/1tb/vitti/local/gcc-5.3.0-address/bin/g++ gccerr26.C -S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67498
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in gfortran 5.3.0
/home/vitti/gcc-5.3.0/gcc/fortran/interface.c:2707:33: runtime error:
load of value 1818451807, which is not a valid value for type 'expr_t'
interface.c:2707 "&&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67497
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in gfortran 5.3.0
/home/vitti/gcc-5.3.0/gcc/fortran/data.c:191:32: runtime error: null
pointer passed as argument 2, which is declared to never be null
data.c:191 "memcpy ([start],
: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
! gfortran 6.1.0 Segmentation fault in gfc_assign_data_value
type t
integer :: g=0 ! default initialization
end type
type(t) :: v2
data v2/t
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
c++ fails to compile some mozilla firefox version 42 cc files
c++ 5.3.0 compiles fine
firefox configured with
../configure --disable-gconf
then run
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/* gcc -fsanitize=undefined */
int foo (int n, int k)
{
struct S
{
int i[n];
int value;
} s[2];
return s[k].value = 0;
}
int
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/* gcc -fsanitize=undefined -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx */
void f(char *a, int *b)
{
*b = *a;
}
/*
* p.c:5:1: internal compiler error
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/* gcc -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx */
void f (char *s1, char *s2)
{
int z = 5;
struct { char a[z]; } x;
s1[0] = s2[0];
foo (x, x
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/* gcc -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx */
int foo(int);
typedef struct {
double d;
int a;
} str_t;
void bar(double d, int i, str_t s)
{
d = ((double (*) (int)) foo) (i);
}
/*p.c: In function ‘bar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67737
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/* gcc -fsanitize=undefined */
void * sbrk ()
{
volatile register __attribute__ ((__spu_vector__)) unsigned int sp_r1 __asm__
("1");
__builtin_spu_extract
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49630
--- Comment #11 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I am still having an ICE with gfortran 5.3.0 on the following
module abc
implicit none
type,abstract::abc_abstract
contains
procedure(abc_interface),deferred::abc_function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50402
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
ICE on gfortran 5.3.0
gfortran should never have an ICE, even on invalid code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67494
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Any update on this issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44265
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in 5.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
--- Comment #21 from Vittorio Zecca ---
ICE still in 5.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50536
--- Comment #8 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in 5.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50392
--- Comment #8 from Vittorio Zecca ---
ICE still in 5.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50069
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in 5.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67496
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Yes, I did test your patch, but nothing changed.
I understand you tried to generate a sanitized version of f951 but the
process failed.
I did the following (approximately):
CFLAGS="-fsanitize=undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67498
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in gfortran 6.1.0
../../gcc-6.1.0/gcc/fortran/interface.c:2738:33: runtime error: load of value
1818451807, which is not a valid value for type 'expr_t'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67496
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Just back from my travels.
Sorry, I get the same warning on 6.1.0:
/home/vitti/1tb/vitti/gcc-6.1.0-undefined/gcc/f951 -quiet gfbug121.f
../../gcc-6.1.0/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c:2234:27: runtime error:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64327
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
On 6.1.0 I applied the same patch I suggested on comment 6,
this time at line 5187,
and the runtime error disappeared.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69412
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
A reproducer for the parser.c runtime error
/* gcc-6.1.0-undefined/bin/g++ -I../../gcc-6.1.0/gcc/.
-I../../gcc-6.1.0/gcc/../include -I../../gcc-6.1.0/gcc/../libcpp/include p.c
-S -I. */
/*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67485
--- Comment #1 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in 6.1.0 at line 3162 of expmed.c
"val_so_far -= (HOST_WIDE_INT) 1 << log;"
../../gcc-6.1.0/gcc/expmed.c:3162:42: runtime error: signed integer overflow:
-9223372036854775808 - 1 cannot be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69412
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67496
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I understand that you are still seeing a message like this
../../gcc-6.1.0/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c:2233:27: runtime error: load
of value 176, which is not a valid value for type 'bool'
right?
If yes,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67496
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca ---
My C is not better than yours, but length_from_typespec might have
been incorrectly
initialized elsewhere, otherwise it is a false positive.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278
--- Comment #13 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I think that 1 << 31 is undefined because "1" is assumed (signed) int.
Maybe it should be 1u << 31 ?
Anyway on 6.1.0 I have no runtime error message.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526
--- Comment #34 from Vittorio Zecca ---
The Intel icpc compiler complains that in the reduced testcase
ansi-alias rules are violated.
icpc gccerr45.C -Wstrict-aliasing
gccerr45.C(77) (col. 32): warning #2102: violation of ansi-alias rules
This
201 - 300 of 564 matches
Mail list logo
