[Bug middle-end/108154] Inappropriate -Wstringop-overread in the C99 [static n] func param decl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108154 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- The warning here is intentional -- as noted, a [static 1] array can be as small as a single element. The warning is designed to help detect stronger assumptions inadvertently made by the function definition. (The compiler makes no analysis to see how the function is being called; it could if the function were declared static but but without full LTO it can't for an extern function.) The recommended annotation to indicate that a pointer argument must not be null is attribute nonnull.
[Bug middle-end/97048] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wstringop-overread warnings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97048 Bug 97048 depends on bug 108154, which changed state. Bug 108154 Summary: Inappropriate -Wstringop-overread in the C99 [static n] func param decl https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108154 What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID
[Bug tree-optimization/84774] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wrestrict
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84774 Bug 84774 depends on bug 107069, which changed state. Bug 107069 Summary: string assignment triggers warning https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107069 What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
[Bug tree-optimization/105329] [12/13 Regression] Bogus restrict warning when assigning 1-char string literal to std::string since r12-3347-g8af8abfbbace49e6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105329 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||joerg.rich...@pdv-fs.de --- Comment #23 from Martin Sebor --- *** Bug 107069 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c++/107069] string assignment triggers warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107069 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Last reconfirmed||2022-9-29 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Known to work||13.0 Known to fail||12.2.0 --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- The warning doesn't show up on trunk (GCC 13) with the fix in r13-2618 so let's mark it a duplicate of pr105329. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 105329 ***
[Bug tree-optimization/107038] [13 Regression] Bogus -Wstringop-overflow= since r13-2789-gb40b3035879cf695
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107038 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- Just a quick note from what I see in GDB. The warning is issued by the 2nd run of the waccess pass (-fdump-tree-waccess2) for the following statement in bb 22 in pread(): iftmp.21_88 = __pread_alias (_50, _82, _81, _79); _81's range reported by range_query::range_of_expr (vr, exp, stmt) is [58, ULONG_MAX], matching the range in the warning. A partial output of debug_ranger() for the function is below. I must be reading it wrong because I don't see what the range above is derived from. === BB 19 Imports: recvd_78 _83 Exports: _51 recvd_78 recvd.17_80 _83 _94 _116 _125 _83 [irange] UNDEFINED [local count: 169058114]: if (_83 == 18446744073709551615) goto ; [34.00%] else goto ; [66.00%] 19->22 (T) _83 : [irange] UNDEFINED 19->20 (F) _83 : [irange] UNDEFINED === BB 20 Imports: _81 _83 Exports: _81 _83 _85 _86 _87 _85 : _81(I) _83(I) _86 : _81(I) _83(I) _85 _87 : _81(I) _83(I) _85 _86 _81 [irange] long unsigned int VARYING _83 [irange] long unsigned int VARYING [local count: 280636469]: _85 = _81 <= _83; _86 = (int) _85; _87 = __builtin_constant_p (_86); if (_87 != 0) goto ; [50.00%] else goto ; [50.00%] _86 : [irange] int [0, 1] NONZERO 0x1 _87 : [irange] int [0, 0] NONZERO 0x0 20->21 (T) _81 : [irange] UNDEFINED 20->21 (T) _83 : [irange] UNDEFINED 20->21 (T) _85 : [irange] UNDEFINED 20->21 (T) _86 : [irange] UNDEFINED 20->21 (T) _87 : [irange] UNDEFINED 20->24 (F) _86 : [irange] int [0, 1] NONZERO 0x1 20->24 (F) _87 : [irange] int [0, 0] NONZERO 0x0 === BB 21 Imports: recvd_78 _81 _83 Exports: _51 recvd_78 recvd.17_80 _81 _83 _94 _116 _125 _81 [irange] UNDEFINED _83 [irange] UNDEFINED [local count: 140318235]: if (_81 <= _83) goto ; [50.00%] else goto ; [50.00%] 21->22 (T) _81 : [irange] UNDEFINED 21->22 (T) _83 : [irange] UNDEFINED 21->23 (F) _81 : [irange] UNDEFINED 21->23 (F) _83 : [irange] UNDEFINED === BB 22 [local count: 127638877]: iftmp.21_88 = __pread_alias (_50, _82, _81, _79); goto ; [100.00%]
[Bug c/106988] subscripting a string literal is not an integer constant expression but __builtin_strlen is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106988
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |---
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Keywords|diagnostic |rejects-valid
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
After experimenting with this some more I think the decision to reject this and
the other similar requests should be reconsidered. GCC accepts many equivalent
nonconstant expressions in contexts where they are required (see below).
Rejecting the simplest of them seems arbitrary and is (as is evident from the
duplicate requests) unhelpful to C programmers and surprising those used to the
C++ behavior.
$ cat a.c && gcc -S -Wall -Wpedantic a.c
#include
_Static_assert (memcmp ("", "", 1) == 0, ""); // okay in C mode only
_Static_assert (memchr ("", 0, 1) != 0, ""); // okay in C mode only
_Static_assert (strlen ("") == 0, ""); // okay in C and C++
_Static_assert (strcmp ("", "") == 0, ""); // okay in C and C++
_Static_assert ("" == "", ""); // okay in C and C++
_Static_assert (*"" == 0, ""); // error in C only
a.c:3:36: warning: expression in static assertion is not an integer constant
expression [-Wpedantic]
3 | _Static_assert (memcmp ("", "", 1) == 0, ""); // okay in C mode only
| ~~~^~~~
a.c:4:35: warning: expression in static assertion is not an integer constant
expression [-Wpedantic]
4 | _Static_assert (memchr ("", 0, 1) != 0, ""); // okay in C mode only
| ~~^~~~
a.c:5:29: warning: expression in static assertion is not an integer constant
expression [-Wpedantic]
5 | _Static_assert (strlen ("") == 0, ""); // okay in C and C++
| ^~~~
a.c:6:33: warning: expression in static assertion is not an integer constant
expression [-Wpedantic]
6 | _Static_assert (strcmp ("", "") == 0, ""); // okay in C and C++
| ^~~~
a.c:7:20: warning: comparison with string literal results in unspecified
behavior [-Waddress]
7 | _Static_assert ("" == "", ""); // okay in C and C++
|^~
a.c:7:20: warning: expression in static assertion is not an integer constant
expression [-Wpedantic]
7 | _Static_assert ("" == "", ""); // okay in C and C++
| ~~~^
a.c:9:21: error: expression in static assertion is not constant
9 | _Static_assert (*"" == 0, ""); // error in C only
| ^~~~
[Bug c/106988] New: subscripting a string literal is not an integer constant expression but __builtin_strlen is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106988
Bug ID: 106988
Summary: subscripting a string literal is not an integer
constant expression but __builtin_strlen is
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
In C mode, GCC rejects a subscript expression whose operand is a string literal
in contexts where an integer constant expression is required but accepts an
equivalent expression involving __builtin_strlen. Although conforming, it's
inconsistent and unnecessarily restrictive. Accepting both (either with
-Wpedantic) would also be conforming and more useful to programmers who need it
but don't think of using the built-in workaround.
$ cat a.c && gcc -S -Wall -Wpedantic a.c
#define EMPTY1(S) (__builtin_strlen(S) == 0)
_Static_assert(!EMPTY1("1"), "");// ok
#define EMPTY2(S) (S[0] == 0)
_Static_assert(!EMPTY2("1"), "");// error
a.c:5:16: error: expression in static assertion is not constant
5 | _Static_assert(!EMPTY2("1"), "");// error
|^
[Bug tree-optimization/106931] [12/13 Regression] -Wstringop-overflow false positive -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize with loop unrolling since r12-3300-gece28da924ddda8b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106931 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13 Regression] |[12/13 Regression] |-Wstringop-overflow false |-Wstringop-overflow false |positive -O3 |positive -O3 |-fno-tree-vectorize since |-fno-tree-vectorize with |r12-3300-gece28da924ddda8b |loop unrolling since ||r12-3300-gece28da924ddda8b --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- The false positive is issued for the store to A[i_90] in BB 10 by the strlen pass, where i_90's range is [8, 8]. [local count: 712060]: _35 = (sizetype) i_90; _36 = B.1_83 + _35; _37 = *_36; A[i_90] = _37;<< -Wstringop-overflow _20 = _93 + 9; i_39 = (int) _20; goto ; [100.00%] Changing i's type to unsigned avoids the warning. The IL looks very close but i_90's range in BB 10 is VR_UNDEFINED instead. The following is debug_ranger() output for BBs 9 and 10 in the original test case. === BB 9 Imports: _93 Exports: _8 i_90 _93 _8 : _93(I) _86 : i_82(I) _87 : i_82(I) B.1_83(I) _86 i_90 : _8 _93(I) i_82[irange] int [7, 7] NONZERO 0x7 _93 [irange] unsigned int [0, 0] NONZERO 0x0 Relational : (_8 > _93) [local count: 801058]: _86 = (sizetype) i_82; _87 = B.1_83 + _86; _88 = *_87; A[i_82] = _88; _8 = _93 + 8; i_90 = (int) _8; if (i_90 != 8) goto ; [88.89%] else goto ; [11.11%] _8 : [irange] unsigned int [8, 8] NONZERO 0x8 _86 : [irange] sizetype [7, 7] NONZERO 0x7 _87 : [irange] char * [1, +INF] i_90 : [irange] int [8, 8] NONZERO 0x8 9->10 (T) _8 : [irange] UNDEFINED 9->10 (T) i_90 : [irange] UNDEFINED 9->10 (T) _93 :[irange] UNDEFINED 9->12 (F) _8 : [irange] unsigned int [8, 8] NONZERO 0x8 9->12 (F) i_90 : [irange] int [8, 8] NONZERO 0x8 9->12 (F) _93 :[irange] unsigned int [0, 0] NONZERO 0x0 === BB 10 _93 [irange] UNDEFINED [local count: 712060]: _35 = (sizetype) i_90; _36 = B.1_83 + _35; _37 = *_36; A[i_90] = _37; _20 = _93 + 9; i_39 = (int) _20; goto ; [100.00%] whereas for the unsigned case: === BB 10 _85 [irange] UNDEFINED i_90[irange] UNDEFINED
[Bug tree-optimization/106868] [12/13 Regression] Bogus -Wdangling-pointer warning with -O1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106868
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2)
...
Actually, scratch that, sorry. Richard is right that the false positive is due
to a bug in the warning code. The following patch resolves it:
diff --git a/gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc b/gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc
index 04aa849a4b1..79093b46906 100644
--- a/gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc
+++ b/gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-access.cc
@@ -4467,6 +4467,7 @@ pass_waccess::gimple_call_return_arg_ref (gcall *call)
{
access_ref aref;
if (m_ptr_qry.get_ref (arg, call, , 0)
+ && aref.deref < 0
&& DECL_P (aref.ref))
return aref.ref;
}
[Bug tree-optimization/106868] [12/13 Regression] Bogus -Wdangling-pointer warning with -O1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106868
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Confirmed.
>
> [local count: 1073741824]:
> alloc ();
> q.0_1 = q;
> *p_4(D) = q.0_1;
> q ={v} {CLOBBER(eol)};
> a_8 = __builtin_memcpy (q.0_1, "", 1);
> *a_8 = 0;
> return;
...
> we somehow confuse q.0_1 = q; as assigning the address of the object 'q'.
The reason for the false positive is plain to see in the IL: the memcpy call is
passed a copy of the clobbered q. It then returns another copy of the same q
which is then used to dereference whatever the pointer points to. The warning
is due to the (known) mismatch between how the optimizers and the warning
interpret clobbers: (IIUC) the optimizers treat it as the value of the assigned
variable alone becoming indeterminate, while the warning as all copies of it
becoming so.
[Bug middle-end/106776] Unexpected use-after-free warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106776
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Reproduced with the following reduced test case:
$ cat pr106776.C && g++ -O2 -S -Wall pr106776.C
#include
struct matrix_t
{
int* count;
matrix_t() :
count(new int(1)) {}
matrix_t(const matrix_t& p) :
count(p.count) { ++*count; }
~matrix_t() { if (--*count == 0) { delete count; } }
};
typedef std::map cache_t;
cache_t CACHE;
matrix_t* cache(cache_t::iterator lb)
{
matrix_t wftable;
return (lb, cache_t::value_type(1, wftable))->second;
}
In destructor ‘matrix_t::~matrix_t()’,
inlined from ‘matrix_t* cache(std::map::iterator)’ at
pr106776.C:25:1:
pr106776.C:13:23: warning: pointer used after ‘void operator delete(void*,
std::size_t)’ [-Wuse-after-free]
13 | ~matrix_t() { if (--*count == 0) { delete count; } }
| ^~
In destructor ‘matrix_t::~matrix_t()’,
inlined from ‘std::pair::~pair()’ at
/build/gcc-master/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_pair.h:187:12,
inlined from ‘matrix_t* cache(std::map::iterator)’ at
pr106776.C:24:37:
pr106776.C:13:45: note: call to ‘void operator delete(void*, std::size_t)’ here
13 | ~matrix_t() { if (--*count == 0) { delete count; } }
| ^
The IL in shows the reason for the warning in bb 8 in struct matrix_t * cache
(struct iterator lb), seen in the output of -fdump-tree-waccess3:
...
[local count: 335388518]:
operator delete (_3, 4); <<< _3 deleted
pretmp_50 = MEM[(int *)_3]; <<< _3 dereferenced
[Bug tree-optimization/106757] [12/13 Regression] Incorrect "writing 1 byte into a region of size 0" on a vectorized loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106757 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-08-26 Blocks||88443 CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Summary|[12/13 Regression] |[12/13 Regression] |Incorrect "writing 1 byte |Incorrect "writing 1 byte |into a region of size 0"|into a region of size 0" on |warning |a vectorized loop --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor --- GCC unrolls the loop, and GCC 12 also vectorizes it. The combination of the two isolates stores from the loop that are out of bounds but that GCC cannot prove cannot happen: it has no insight into what value pqr_mbc_len() might return and if it's 5 or more the code would indeed write past the end. The warning just points it out. To "fix" this the unroller could use the bounds of the destination array to avoid emitting code for iterations of the loop that end up accessing objects outside their bounds (there already is logic that does that, controlled by the -faggressive-loop-optimizations option). Until then, if the function is guaranteed to return a value between 0 and 4 then adding the following assertion both avoids the warning and improves the emitted code. if (len < 0 || MBC_MAX < len) __builtin_unreachable (); The invalid stores can be seen in the IL output by the -fdump-tree-strlen=/dev/stdout developer option: [local count: 76354976]: bnd.6_47 = _26 >> 2; vect__3.11_53 = MEM [(char *)mbs_22]; MEM [(char *)] = vect__3.11_53; vectp_mbs.9_52 = mbs_22 + 4; niters_vector_mult_vf.7_48 = bnd.6_47 << 2; tmp.8_49 = (int) niters_vector_mult_vf.7_48; if (_26 == niters_vector_mult_vf.7_48) goto ; [25.00%] else goto ; [75.00%] [local count: 57266232]: _75 = (sizetype) tmp.8_49; _76 = vectp_mbs.9_52; _77 = MEM[(char *)vectp_mbs.9_52]; tmpchar[tmp.8_49] = _77; <<< -Wstringop-overflow k_79 = tmp.8_49 + 1; if (len_12 > 5) goto ; [80.00%] else goto ; [20.00%] [local count: 45812986]: _82 = 5; _83 = mbs_22 + 5; _84 = *_83; tmpchar[5] = _84; <<< -Wstringop-overflow k_86 = tmp.8_49 + 2; if (len_12 > k_86) goto ; [80.00%] else goto ; [20.00%] Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443 [Bug 88443] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wstringop-overflow warnings
[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 105348, which changed state. Bug 105348 Summary: Overly aggressive -Warray-bounds after conditional https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105348 What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID
[Bug middle-end/105348] Overly aggressive -Warray-bounds after conditional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105348 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- Resolved as invalid per comment #3.
[Bug tree-optimization/106247] GCC12 warning in Eigen: array subscript is partly outside array bounds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106247
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|2022-07-10 00:00:00 |2022-08-19
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
This instance of -Warray-bounds (with the text "partly outside the bounds") is
often issued for aliasing violations where an object of one type is being
access by an lvalue of a larger struct. The ultimate access may be to a member
of the larger struct whose offset is within the bounds of the smaller object,
but the access is (or could be) wrong nonetheless (due to the aliasing rules)
and hence the warning.
Here's an example:
$ cat a.c && gcc -O2 -S -Wall a.c
struct A { int i; };
struct B { struct A a; int j; };
void* f (void)
{
struct A *p = __builtin_malloc (sizeof *p);
((struct B*)p)->a.i = 0;
return p;
}
a.c: In function ‘f’:
a.c:7:17: warning: array subscript ‘struct B[0]’ is partly outside array bounds
of ‘unsigned char[4]’ [-Warray-bounds]
7 | ((struct B*)p)->a.i = 0;
| ^~
a.c:6:17: note: object of size 4 allocated by ‘__builtin_malloc’
6 | struct A *p = __builtin_malloc (sizeof *p);
| ^~~~
If your case is comparable this should be resolved as invalid; otherwise, if
it's substantially different please post a reproducible test case.
[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 106446, which changed state. Bug 106446 Summary: -Warray-bounds false positive on downcast under condition https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106446 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID
[Bug tree-optimization/106446] -Warray-bounds false positive on downcast under condition
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106446 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- The compiler doesn't know what D2::is_me() might return so it must emit code for both branches in bar(). In the true branch, because struct D1 has no member val, the warning triggers. This is by design.
[Bug tree-optimization/106559] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Spurious warning -Wformat-truncation (regression from 9)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106559
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks||85741
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning triggers because it considers the size of the whole `string' array
passed as an argument to the %s directive. It does that because the analysis
is unable to determine which array element the argument points to and it's not
"smart" enough to see that all the elements are strings of the same length.
The output of the -fdump-tree-strlen option below helps see what's gooing on
(the numbers next to each Result: show the minimum, maximum, likely, and
unlikely amount of output produced by the directive, with the corresponding
running totals in parentheses).
The problem can be reduced to a missed optimization opportunity in the test
following test case: the condition in each iteration of the loop is false so
the loop can be optimized away, but because of the incomplete analysis above it
is not.
void f (void)
{
static const char string[16][3]={
"01","02","03","04","05","06","07","08",
"09","10","11","12","13","14","15","16"};
for(unsigned int i=0; i<16; ++i)
if (__builtin_strlen (string[i]) != 2)
__builtin_abort ();
}
Short of improving the strlen optimization the warning could also be suppressed
by considering the cast in the assignment `_2 = (const char[3] *) ivtmp.11_15;'
and using the size of the array as the upper bound on the length of the string.
(This wouldn't be safe for the optimization.)
Until this is fixed in GCC, the warning can be suppressed and the emitted code
improved by asserting in each iteration that the length of the string is (at
most) two, like so:
if (__builtin_strlen (string[i]) != 2)
__builtin_unreachable ();
pr106559.c:11: __builtin_snprintf: objsize = 64, fmtstr = "%u (%s): %8x"
Directive 1 at offset 0: "%u"
Result: 1, 2, 2, 2 (1, 2, 2, 2)
Directive 2 at offset 2: " (", length = 2
Result: 2, 2, 2, 2 (3, 4, 4, 4)
Directive 3 at offset 4: "%s"
Result: 0, 47, 47, 9223372036854775807 (3, 51, 51, -9223372036854775805)
Directive 4 at offset 6: "): ", length = 5
Result: 5, 5, 5, 5 (8, 56, 56, -9223372036854775800)
Directive 5 at offset 11: "%8x"
Result: 8, 8, 8, 8 (16, 64, 64, -9223372036854775792)
Directive 6 at offset 14: "", length = 1
pr106559.c: In function ‘f’:
pr106559.c:11:61: warning: ‘__builtin_snprintf’ output may be truncated before
the last format character [-Wformat-truncation=]
11 | __builtin_snprintf(buffer,sizeof(buffer),"%u (%s): %8x",
| ^
pr106559.c:11:5: note: ‘__builtin_snprintf’ output between 17 and 65 bytes into
a destination of size 64
11 | __builtin_snprintf(buffer,sizeof(buffer),"%u (%s): %8x",
| ^~
12 | i,string[i],number[i]);
| ~~
void f ()
{
unsigned long ivtmp.11;
unsigned long ivtmp.5;
unsigned int i;
static const char string[16][3] = {"01", "02", "03", "04", "05", "06", "07",
"08", "09", "10", "11", "12", "13", "14", "15", "16"};
unsigned int _1;
const char[3] * _2;
unsigned int _18;
[local count: 63136016]:
ivtmp.11_17 = (unsigned long)
[local count: 1010605809]:
# ivtmp.5_13 = PHI
# ivtmp.11_15 = PHI
_18 = (unsigned int) ivtmp.5_13;
_1 = MEM[(unsigned int *) + ivtmp.5_13 * 4];
_2 = (const char[3] *) ivtmp.11_15;<<< cast
not considered
__builtin_snprintf (, 64, "%u (%s): %8x", _18, _2, _1); <<<
warning here for _2
Referenced Bugs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
[Bug 85741] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wformat-overflow
[Bug c/100420] unspecified VLA bound formatted as [0] instead of [*] in -Wvla-parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100420 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed||2022-08-16 Known to fail||11.1.0, 12.1.0 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor --- Confirmed with GCC 11 and 12.
[Bug c/101605] bogus -Wvla-parameter in same bound expression with differently named parameters
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101605 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2021-07-23 00:00:00 |2022-08-16 Known to fail||11.1.0, 12.1.0 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor --- Confirmed with GCC 11 and 12.
[Bug middle-end/98109] Seemingly wrong warnings from -Wnonnull when combined with -O2 -fsanitize=undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98109 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- (In reply to Bernd Buschinski from comment #4) > Can someone tell me if this should be a new bug or is just a duplicate? It's the same bug. The sanitizer transforms the source code into the following IR (note the 0B argument to my_memmem): [local count: 390331996]: if (str_path$buffer_7 == 0B) goto ; [0.00%] else goto ; [100.00%] [count: 0]: __builtin___ubsan_handle_nonnull_arg (&*.Lubsan_data2); _12 = my_memmem (0B, str_path$length_11, ".abcd", 5); <<< warning here if (_12 != 0B) goto ; [54.59%] else goto ; [45.41%]
[Bug tree-optimization/106297] [12/13 Regression] stringop-overflow misbehaviour on atomic since r12-4725-g88b504b7a8c5affb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106297 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||12.1.0, 13.0 Blocks||88443 Keywords||missed-optimization --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- There have been other reports of false positives due to the same issue (e.g., some or all of pr65461, pr92539, pr92955, pr95140, and pr96447). Since the unrolling pass uses the invalid access to decide to unroll the loop maybe it could insert the __builtin_unreachable() call before it (or instead of it) rather than after it. That way the bad access would get eliminated and the warning avoided. Or, it could, in addition to inserting the __builtin_unreachable() call after it, also suppress the access warning for the bad statement. Alternatively, these problems could be worked around in the warning code by suppressing it in basic blocks that terminate by a call to unreachable. But this would cause false negatives where the unreachable call is added after real problems in the user's source). Until this is solved in GCC it can be dealt with in user code by asserting the loop doesn't iterate more times than there are elements in the array. In the test case in comment #5 that might look like so: if (n >= sizeof s / sizeof *s) __builtin_unreachable (); Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443 [Bug 88443] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wstringop-overflow warnings
[Bug middle-end/105746] vector::resize causes Warray-bounds when optimizer uses __builtin_memcpy or __builtin_memmove since r12-2793-g81d6cdd335ffc60c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105746
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The memmove call in the IL the warning is issued for writes past the end of the
allocated block. My guess is that the call to operator new prevents it from
figuring out that the _M_finish initially zeroed out by the vectorized store to
vectp.132_96 is still clear in bb 5. This can be confirmed by replacing the
call to operator new with one to __builtin_malloc() which both eliminates the
warning and also results in much more efficient code(*). There are duplicates
of this problem in Bugzilla. The root cause is probably the fix for pr101480.
[local count: 1073741824]:
vectp.132_96 = [(struct _Vector_impl_data *)v_2(D)]._M_start;
MEM [(union U * *)vectp.132_96] = { 0, 0 };
<<< zero out _M_finish (and _M_start)
MEM[(struct _Vector_impl_data *)v_2(D)]._M_end_of_storage = 0B;
_70 = operator new (100);
[local count: 1073741824]:
__builtin_memset (_70, 255, 100);
_78 = v_2(D)->D.25350._M_impl.D.24657._M_start;<<< zero
if (_78 != 0B)
goto ; [89.00%]
else
goto ; [11.00%]
[local count: 439275554]: <<< unreachable
# __cur_127 = PHI <__cur_83(4), _70(3)>
# __first_120 = PHI <__first_82(4), _78(3)>
*__cur_127 ={v} {CLOBBER};
_81 = MEM[(const union U &)__first_120];
MEM[(union U *)__cur_127] = _81;
__first_82 = __first_120 + 1;
__cur_83 = __cur_127 + 1;
goto ; [100.00%]
[local count: 54292484]:
__new_finish_85 = _70 + 100;
_86 = v_2(D)->D.25350._M_impl.D.24657._M_finish; <<< zero
if (_86 != 0B)
goto ; [89.00%]
else
goto ; [11.00%]
[local count: 48320311]:<<< unreachable
_93 = (sizetype) _86; <<< zero
__builtin_memmove (__new_finish_85, 0B, _93); <<< warning
...
The IL for the function when operator new is replaced with __builtin_malloc:
struct vector bug ()
{
union U * __new_finish;
union U * __cur;
long unsigned int __n;
union U * _70;
[local count: 1073741824]:
_70 = __builtin_malloc (100);
__builtin_memset (_70, 255, 100);
__new_finish_84 = _70 + 100;
v_2(D)->D.25350._M_impl.D.24657._M_start = _70;
v_2(D)->D.25350._M_impl.D.24657._M_finish = __new_finish_84;
v_2(D)->D.25350._M_impl.D.24657._M_end_of_storage = __new_finish_84;
return v_2(D);
}
[Bug c/106264] [10/11/12/13 Regression] spurious -Wunused-value on a folded frexp, modf, and remquo calls with unused result
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106264 --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- The most likely culprit is r261705.
[Bug c/106264] New: spurious -Wunused-value on a folded frexp, modf, and remquo calls with unused result
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106264
Bug ID: 106264
Summary: spurious -Wunused-value on a folded frexp, modf, and
remquo calls with unused result
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
In C mode only the following test case triggers the invalid (or at least poorly
worded and so confusing) instances of -Wunused-value. Each instance goes away
when the call is not folded or when its result is used. The C++ front end
doesn't warn.
$ cat a.c && gcc -O -Wall -S -Wall a.c
double frexp (double, int*);
double modf (double, double*);
double remquo (double, double, int*);
int f (void)
{
int y;
frexp (1.0, );
return y;
}
double g (void)
{
double y;
modf (1.0, );
return y;
}
int h (void)
{
int y;
remquo (1.0, 1.0, );
return y;
}
a.c: In function ‘f’:
a.c:8:3: warning: right-hand operand of comma expression has no effect
[-Wunused-value]
8 | frexp (1.0, );
| ^~~
a.c: In function ‘g’:
a.c:15:3: warning: right-hand operand of comma expression has no effect
[-Wunused-value]
15 | modf (1.0, );
| ^~
a.c: In function ‘h’:
a.c:22:3: warning: right-hand operand of comma expression has no effect
[-Wunused-value]
22 | remquo (1.0, 1.0, );
| ^
[Bug tree-optimization/97185] inconsistent builtin elimination for impossible range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97185 --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- There's a heuristic for ranges of allocation sizes to exclude zero (size_range_flags) that comes into play here. The actual range isn't "impossible" in the sense it's necessarily invalid. It just means the string function call is either a no-op or out of bounds, and so can be eliminated as an optimization. With the optimization consistently implemented the warning will also go away (eliminating the calls will prevent sanitizers from detecting the out of bounds ones, so that might be a consideration). In general, a low > high range denoted an anti-range before Ranger was introduced (i.e., ~[high, low]). With Ranger it's the corresponding union of two ranges. Some of the cruft for dealing with anti-ranges is still around, such as in get_size_range() in pointer-query.cc. The code should be migrated to the irange class and the representation probably also updated to print something more sensible (e.g., the union [MIN, high) U (low, MAX]; we talked about introducing a pretty-printer % directive for ranges to make the format consistent across all diagnostics).
[Bug middle-end/101836] __builtin_object_size(P->M, 1) where M is an array and the last member of a struct fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 --- Comment #20 from Martin Sebor --- Well, I just "asked" for such an option the same way you asked for -fstrict-flex-arrays in comment #3, because I believe it would be useful to make the BOS improvements you're looking for available even to code that can't do a whole-hog replacement of all trailing arrays with flexible array members. The spelling of the option names doesn't seem important to me (they could be separate options, or the same one with an argument).
[Bug middle-end/101836] __builtin_object_size(P->M, 1) where M is an array and the last member of a struct fails
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 --- Comment #18 from Martin Sebor --- The zero size case exists (and is documented) solely as a substitute for flexible array members. Treating is as an ordinary array would disable that extension. It might be appropriate to provide a separate option to control it but conflating it with the other cases (one or more elements) doesn't seem like the robust design. As I mentioned in the review of the Clang change, https://reviews.llvm.org/D126864, so that code bases that use some larger number of elements than zero, such as one, and that can't easily change, can still benefit from the BOS enhancement for the remaining cases, it would be helpful for the new option to accept the minimum number of elements at which a trailing array ceases to be considered a poor-man's flexible array member.
[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 105762, which changed state. Bug 105762 Summary: [12/13 Regression] -Warray-bounds false positives for integer-to-pointer casts since r12-2132-ga110855667782dac https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105762 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID
[Bug middle-end/105762] [12/13 Regression] -Warray-bounds false positives for integer-to-pointer casts since r12-2132-ga110855667782dac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105762 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=99578 Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- There is no object at address 1 (or at any "made up" address) so dereferencing that address is undefined. The warning is designed to detect accesses at nonzero offsets from null (e.g., p->x or p[i]). It was relaxed to accommodate a subset of the use cases where the offset is above 4k (see pr99578).
[Bug tree-optimization/84774] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wrestrict
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84774 Bug 84774 depends on bug 93517, which changed state. Bug 93517 Summary: bogus -Wrestrict on sprintf with unknown strings bounded by array size https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93517 What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
[Bug middle-end/93517] bogus -Wrestrict on sprintf with unknown strings bounded by array size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93517 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- I'm not able to reproduce the warning with any released version, or on trunk.
[Bug middle-end/105604] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE: in tree_to_shwi with vla in struct and sprintf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105604 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10/11/12 Regression] ICE: |ICE: in tree_to_shwi with |in tree_to_shwi with vla in |vla in struct and sprintf |struct and sprintf Blocks||84774 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- Fixed on trunk. The changes should be safe to backport after some time. Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84774 [Bug 84774] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wrestrict
[Bug c/105689] Bogus `-Wstringop-overflow=` after accessing field, then containing struct (wrong "region size")
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105689 --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- It is because of CSE. The warning sees this IL: _1 = _3(D)->sub.field1; access_1 (_1); access_2 (_1); and so it warns for the second call because the size of me->sub.field1 passed to it is smaller than struct subobject. The attribute access on access_2() is what tells it to use the size of struct subobject. The CSE substitution causes false positives in other contexts besides calls to functions with attribute access. IIRC, one of the ideas for dealing with this we discussed was to have CSE use the largest subobject instead whatever it comes across first.
[Bug tree-optimization/105585] [12/13 Regression] Spurious stringop-overflow warning with since r12-4725-g88b504b7a8c5affb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105585 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- The warning is caused by the if statement: if p is null, accessing the p->a member is undefined. It triggers because the GCC optimizer splits the code into two branches: one with a nonnull p and another with a null p. The second one triggers the warning. If p can be null then moving the increment to the body of the if statement avoids the undefined behavior (and the warning). If p cannot be null then making the if statement unconditional also avoids the warning.
[Bug tree-optimization/104970] [12 Regression] ICE in execute_todo, at passes.cc:2133 since r12-6480-gea19c8f33a3a8d2b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104970
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
The purpose of the internal_p flag documented in the attr_access class is more
general than to tell a VLA-like argument from an ordinary array/pointer form
("Set for an attribute added internally rather than by an explicit
declaration") so tying the two together would be fragile. I expect using
internal_p directly as Siddhesh suggests will probably work now but I would
recommend using the vla_bounds() member function instead in case things change
in the future.
[Bug tree-optimization/104970] [12 Regression] ICE in execute_todo, at passes.cc:2133 since r12-6480-gea19c8f33a3a8d2b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104970 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- The dollar sign in the internal attr_access string implies a VLA bound and the attr_access::vla_bounds() function queries the VLA bounds. That should make it possible to distinguish the two cases. Unlike the top-level VLA [N] notation which (unfortunately) implies no size constraint on the actual argument, attribute access is meant to imply that the array must have at least N elements (i.e., it's equivalent to [static N]). As an aside, the tests cases in r12-6480 exercise only a small subset of possible use cases: BDOS mode 0 results for calls to a function with attribute access with either a dynamic size (known and unknown result) and a constant size equal to array size. There are many more use cases that aren't being tested that should be (e.g., larger or smaller arrays of constant size than the size argument indicates with BDOS modes other than 0).
[Bug tree-optimization/104970] [12 Regression] ICE in execute_todo, at passes.cc:2133 since r12-6480-gea19c8f33a3a8d2b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104970
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Incidentally, __builtin_dynamic_object_size returns the size of a VLA parameter
in both mininum and maximum modes. In f0 below, the size of the A array is at
least N bytes but it could be more, so based on my reading of the manual, it
seems like f0 is actually supposed return -1 (f1 looks fine). If my reading is
correct that would seem unfortunate because it would basically makes BDOS
ineffective for _FORTIFY_SOURCE of VLA parameters.
long f0 (int n, char a[static n])
{
return __builtin_dynamic_object_size (a, 0); // folded to n, should be -1?
(Clang folds to -1)
}
long f1 (int n, char a[static n])
{
return __builtin_dynamic_object_size (a, 1); // folded to n (Clang folds to
-1)
}
Even more unfortunate seems that that without the [static] it's not undefined
to pass an array with fewer elements than the VLA bound indicates to a function
like f0 of f1. GCC BDOS doesn't seem to consider the [static] notation and
folds the result the same way either way. So while well-written code will
benefit from the stricter runtime checking made possible by the tighter bound,
it will cause aborts for poorly written code that's strictly valid. If I'm
right about this, adding a permissive mode to BDOS to accommodate the poorly
written but valid code might be a way out.
There are cases when __builtin_dynamic_object_size could put the VLA bounds to
use, although I suspect they don't mater for _FORTIFY_SOURCE; if they should
matter, the brute force pr97172 fix might need to be revisited and the bounds
somehow preserved Here are some such use cases:
$ cat c.c && gcc -O -S c.c
long f0 (int n, char a[static n])
{
return __builtin_dynamic_object_size (a, 1); // folded to n
}
long f1 (int n, char (*a)[n])
{
return __builtin_dynamic_object_size (*a, 1); // folded to -1 (fold to n?)
}
long f2 (int n, char a[1][n])
{
return __builtin_dynamic_object_size (a[0], 1); // folded to -1 (fold to
n?)
}
long f3 (int n, char a[static 1][n])
{
return __builtin_dynamic_object_size (a, 1); // ICE (fold to n?)
}
[Bug tree-optimization/104970] [12 Regression] ICE in execute_todo, at passes.cc:2133 since r12-6480-gea19c8f33a3a8d2b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104970 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- The VLA bounds were removed from parameter declarations in the fix for pr97172; there weren't relied on by middle-end warnings then and still aren't today.
[Bug middle-end/104854] -Wstringop-overread should not warn for strnlen, strndup and strncmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104854 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor --- I forgot this strndup pitfall that POSIX cautions about in its APPLICATION USAGE and that the warning helps avoid: Implementations are free to malloc() a buffer containing either (size + 1) bytes or (strnlen(s, size) + 1) bytes. Applications should not assume that strndup() will allocate (size + 1) bytes when strlen(s) is smaller than size. Most implementations, including Glibc, only allocate strnlen (s, size) (i.e., less than size if s is shorter). Since the only motivating test case here is strndup and since it turned out that the patch submitted for this report was based on a misunderstanding of the warning (https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-March/591926.html) and didn't do anything for strndup I'm going to resolve this as invalid. If you want to raise problems about the warning for strnlen or strncmp please open separate bugs and attach test cases, preferably from real code. None of those provided by Steve Grubb appears to have anything to do with strnlen or strncmp.
[Bug c++/69517] SEGV on a VLA with excess initializer elements
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69517 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #19 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug middle-end/71319] unnecessary call to __strcat_chk emitted after buffer reset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71319 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[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 77721, which changed state. Bug 77721 Summary: -Wformat-truncation not uses arg range for converted vars https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77721 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug middle-end/77721] -Wformat-truncation not uses arg range for converted vars
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77721 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Blocks||85741 Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor --- This appears fixed in GCC 12 and 11 (and perhaps even earlier). Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741 [Bug 85741] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wformat-overflow
[Bug c/79554] Zero length format string passed to fprintf under if statement causes error message
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79554 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug middle-end/82601] missing uninitialized warning for INTENT(OUT) argument with -O0 / -Og
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82601 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW CC|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org | --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug tree-optimization/82608] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds VLA index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82608 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug c++/83429] Incorrect line number reported by -Wformat-truncation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83429 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- GCC 11 and 12 print the following for the test case in comment #0. I believe the problem has been resolved (the %G format is gone now from 12). pr83429.c: In function ‘void test(S*)’: pr83429.c:12:42: warning: ‘%s’ directive output may be truncated writing up to 9 bytes into a region of size between 5 and 14 [-Wformat-truncation=] 12 | snprintf(s->out, sizeof(s->out), "%s.%s", s->str1, s->str2); // line 12 | ^~ pr83429.c:12:13: note: ‘snprintf’ output between 2 and 20 bytes into a destination of size 15 12 | snprintf(s->out, sizeof(s->out), "%s.%s", s->str1, s->str2); // line 12 | ^~~
[Bug tree-optimization/84561] -Wstringop-truncation with -O2 depends on strncpy's size type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84561 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor --- The warning is still present in GCC 12. I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug tree-optimization/84577] snprintf with null buffer not eliminated when return value is in a known range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84577 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.2.0, 12.0 Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- No changed in GCC 12 but I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug ipa/84603] -finline-limit not accepted in attribute and #pragma optimize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84603 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug tree-optimization/85650] Additional warnings when -fsanitize=undefined is used with -Wstringop-truncation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85650 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug tree-optimization/87034] [9/10/11/12 Regression] missing -Wformat-overflow on a sprintf %s with a wide string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87034 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug middle-end/88059] Spurious stringop-overflow warning with strlen, malloc and strncpy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88059 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW CC|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org | --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug tree-optimization/88771] Misleading -Werror=array-bounds error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org | Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #26 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug middle-end/88780] [9/10/11/12 Regression] bogus -Wstringop-truncation for copying as many bytes from a string as its length
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88780 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug tree-optimization/89678] Bogus -Wstringop-truncation on strncat with bound that depends on strlen of source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89678 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW CC|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org | --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[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 90752, which changed state. Bug 90752 Summary: missing -Warray-bounds accessing the result of string functions https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90752 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug tree-optimization/90752] missing -Warray-bounds accessing the result of string functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90752 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor --- GCC 12 warns as expected: $ gcc -O2 -S -Wall pr90752.c pr90752.c: In function ‘f’: pr90752.c:7:11: warning: array subscript -1 is outside array bounds of ‘char[4]’ [-Warray-bounds] 7 | return p[-1]; // missing -Warray-bounds | ~^~~~ pr90752.c:2:13: note: at offset -1 into object ‘a’ of size 4 2 | extern char a[4]; | ^ pr90752.c: In function ‘g’: pr90752.c:13:11: warning: array subscript [-5, -2] is outside array bounds of ‘char[4]’ [-Warray-bounds] 13 | return p[-5]; // missing -Warray-bounds | ~^~~~ pr90752.c:2:13: note: at offset [-5, -2] into object ‘a’ of size 4 2 | extern char a[4]; | ^ pr90752.c: In function ‘h’: pr90752.c:19:11: warning: array subscript 4 is outside array bounds of ‘char[4]’ [-Warray-bounds] 19 | return p[4]; // missing -Warray-bounds | ~^~~ pr90752.c:2:13: note: at offset 4 into object ‘a’ of size 4 2 | extern char a[4]; | ^
[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 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug middle-end/90959] hash_map can be copied but leads to a double-free after assignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90959 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug driver/90983] [9 Regression] manual documents `-Wno-stack-usage` flag, but it is unrecognized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90983 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor --- Fixed, won't backport.
[Bug c++/91076] wrong class-key in mentioned in a diagnostic note
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91076 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- Fixed.
[Bug tree-optimization/91147] strlen of conditional plus index in known range not folded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91147 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug middle-end/91490] [9 Regression] bogus argument missing terminating nul warning on strlen of a flexible array member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91490 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer planning to backport the fix.
[Bug middle-end/91584] [9 Regression] Bogus warning from -Warray-bounds during string assignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91584 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer planning to backport the fix.
[Bug middle-end/91848] missing warning on strcpy past the end of a member of an array with variable index
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91848 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug ipa/92799] [9 Regression] ICE on a weakref function definition followed by a declaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92799 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor --- I'm not planning to backport the fix.
[Bug c/94040] [9 Regression] ICE on a call to an invalid redeclaration of strftime
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94040 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor --- I'm not planning to backport the fix.
[Bug c++/94346] [9 Regression] ICE due to handle_copy_attribute since r9-3982
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94346 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer planning to backport the fix.
[Bug tree-optimization/94655] [10 Regression] -Wstringop-overflow on implicit string assignment with vectorized char store
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94655 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #18 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer planning to bakcport the fix.
[Bug c++/94923] False positive -Wclass-memaccess with trivially copyable std::optional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94923 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- Fixed per comment #6.
[Bug middle-end/95072] [10/11/12 Regression] -Warray-bounds false positive with flexible array bounds (regression from GCC 9)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95072 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org CC|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org | Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- The warning is still present in GCC 12. I'm no longer working on it.
[Bug middle-end/95189] [9 Regression] memcmp being wrongly stripped like strcmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org CC|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org | Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #32 from Martin Sebor --- I'm not planning to backport the patch.
[Bug c/96171] [10 Regression] ICE on invalid VLA argument declaration and attribute access
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96171 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer planning to backport the fix.
[Bug tree-optimization/96963] [10 Regression] -Wstringop-overflow false positive on -O3 or -O2 -ftree-vectorize when assigning consecutive char struct members
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96963 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer planning to backport this.
[Bug c/101289] [11 Regression] bogus -Wvla-paramater warning when using const for vla param
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289 Bug 101289 depends on bug 97548, which changed state. Bug 97548 Summary: [11 Regression] bogus -Wvla-parameter on a bound expression involving a parameter https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97548 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug c/101604] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wvla-parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101604 Bug 101604 depends on bug 97548, which changed state. Bug 97548 Summary: [11 Regression] bogus -Wvla-parameter on a bound expression involving a parameter https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97548 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED
[Bug c/97548] [11 Regression] bogus -Wvla-parameter on a bound expression involving a parameter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97548 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor --- Fixed.
[Bug tree-optimization/97631] [10 Regression] bogus "writing one too many bytes" warning for memcpy with strlen argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97631 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer planning to backport the fix.
[Bug tree-optimization/99121] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE tree check: expected integer_cst, have var_decl in get_len, at tree.h:6037
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99121 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor --- Fixed in GCC 12. It could be fixed on release branches but I'm no longer working on it.
[Bug c/99295] [9 Regression] documentation on __attribute__((malloc)) is wrong
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99295 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED CC|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org | Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor --- Fixed.
[Bug tree-optimization/99475] [10/11 Regression] bogus -Warray-bounds accessing an array element of empty structs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99475 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] bogus |[10/11 Regression] bogus |-Warray-bounds accessing an |-Warray-bounds accessing an |array element of empty |array element of empty |structs |structs Known to work||12.0 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- This has been fixed in GCC 12. I'm not planning to backport it.
[Bug middle-end/101665] -fno-delete-null-pointer checks ineffective for attribute nonnull parameters
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101665 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug middle-end/104069] -Werror=use-after-free false positive on elfutils-0.186
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104069 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW CC|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org | --- Comment #22 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug middle-end/104076] bogus -Wdangling-pointer on a conditional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104076 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug tree-optimization/84050] [9/10/11/12 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds accessing a struct array member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84050 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug c++/84318] [9/10/11/12 Regression] attribute deprecated on function templates different than class templates
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84318 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug c++/83430] missing warning for specifying larger snprintf bound than destination size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83430 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org | Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Blocks||85741 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this. Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741 [Bug 85741] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wformat-overflow
[Bug tree-optimization/80420] missing -Wformat-overfow on snprintf with excessive bound
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80420 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||85741 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this. Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741 [Bug 85741] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wformat-overflow
[Bug c++/70588] SIGBUS on a VLA larger than SIZE_MAX / 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70588 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug c++/70076] no exception for excess initializer elements in a multidimensional VLA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70076 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug c/67872] missing -Warray-bounds warning, bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67872 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- I'm no longer working on this.
[Bug preprocessor/41540] -dM -E doesn't #define __FILE__
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41540 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- No longer working on this.
[Bug tree-optimization/40635] [12 Regression] bogus name and location in 'may be used uninitialized' warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40635 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #21 from Martin Sebor --- Deferring to Andrew per comment #19.
[Bug tree-optimization/104969] Likely a false positive of -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104969 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- That's not the intended reading of the POSIX text. But (outside of extensions for behavior C leaves undefined) POSIX defers to C, so the authoritative text is there. C doesn't impose any requirement on the size argument. That said, specifying a snprintf size that's bigger than the space in the provided buffer is certainly asking for trouble, even more so than doing the same with strncmp. GCC should be enhanced to warn about that when possible (pr83430 tracks the request), although I suspect that wouldn't help in this case. For the constant subset of instances Clang issues warning: 'snprintf' size argument is too large; destination buffer has size 4, but size argument is 7 [-Wfortify-source].
[Bug middle-end/104965] [11/12 Regression] Yet another -Warray-bounds false positive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104965
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
It looks like an escape analysis limitation. With this simpler test case using
different types to rule out aliasing assumptions:
#include
int main()
{
std::basic_string s;
auto p = new int[s.size ()]{ };
char c = 0;
if (s.size())
c = *p;
delete[] p;
return c;
}
pr104965.C:9:9: warning: array subscript 0 is outside array bounds of ‘void
[0]’ [-Warray-bounds]
9 | c = *p;
| ^~
pr104965.C:6:34: note: object of size 0 allocated by ‘operator new []’
6 | auto p = new short[s.size ()]{ };
| ^
One of the stores to the local s escapes its address which is then assumed to
have been clobbered by operator new:
[local count: 1073741824]:
s ={v} {CLOBBER};
MEM[(struct _Alloc_hider *)] ={v} {CLOBBER};
MEM[(struct _Alloc_hider *)]._M_p = _M_local_buf;
s._M_string_length = 0;
MEM[(char_type &) + 16] = 0;
_5 = operator new [] (0);
[local count: 1073741824]:
_10 = s._M_string_length;
if (_10 != 0)
goto ; [50.00%]
else
goto ; [50.00%]
[local count: 536870913]:
_1 = MEM[(int *)_5];
c_6 = (char) _1;
[Bug middle-end/99578] [11/12 Regression] 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 --- Comment #31 from Martin Sebor --- I suppose we could move this warning under level 2 until this is handled better. -Warray-bounds already has two levels with level 2 being more noisy, and it might be useful to add a level to -Wstringop-overread as well. As I mentioned in comment #25 and elsewhere, I envisioned that code would annotate these hardwired addresses somehow, ideally using an attribute like addr or the Keil compiler's at (see below), or until one is added, using a workaround like your absolute_pointer(). I realize it means work, but I believe with the attribute the gain in type safety would make it worthwhile. Is that something the kernel developers could be trained to start using? (In full disclosure, I don't expect to have the cycles to work on the attribute anytime soon.) https://www.keil.com/support/man/docs/armcc/armcc_chr1359124981140.htm
[Bug middle-end/104492] [12 Regression] Bogus dangling pointer warning at -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- So the CLOBBER semantics correspond more closely to those of a C++ destructor than to a deallocation call. It would be helpful to document these things.
