[Bug sanitizer/106558] ASan failed to detect a global-buffer-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558 --- Comment #17 from Yuri Gribov --- Fix has been approved (https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/606858.html), I hope to merge it soon.

[Bug sanitizer/106558] ASan failed to detect a global-buffer-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558 --- Comment #13 from Yuri Gribov --- Posted to gcc-patches: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-September/601041.html

[Bug sanitizer/106558] ASan failed to detect a global-buffer-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558 --- Comment #11 from Yuri Gribov --- Created attachment 53493 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53493=edit Updated patch Here is an updated patch which passes bootstrap-asan (I haven't run the testsuite yet). It results in

[Bug sanitizer/106558] ASan failed to detect a global-buffer-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558 --- Comment #8 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7) I've started work on this but I'll probly only have enough time to cook a patch on weekend. > Perhaps either a quick check that for base ptrs that live in memory

[Bug sanitizer/106558] ASan failed to detect a global-buffer-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug libgomp/103276] New: [openacc] Trying to map already mapped data

Component: libgomp Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: tetra2005 at gmail dot com CC: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 51811 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51811=edit Reprocase I've

[Bug middle-end/95550] [OpenACC] ICE in expand_oacc_for, at omp-expand.c:6075

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95550 --- Comment #2 from Yuri Gribov --- The promised repro: SUBROUTINE FOO() INTEGER :: I COMPLEX(8), ALLOCATABLE :: GWORK(:) ALLOCATE(GWORK(512)) !$ACC PARALLEL LOOP

[Bug fortran/93554] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in expand_oacc_for, at omp-expand.c:6035 since r6-4364-ge4834818d22f5c66

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93554 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #7

[Bug middle-end/95550] [OpenACC] ICE in expand_oacc_for, at omp-expand.c:6075

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95550 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #1

[Bug ipa/102310] [11/12 Regression] ICE in visit_ref_for_mod_analysis with OpenACC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102310 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 --- Comment #9 from Yuri Gribov --- Thanks for commiting this. Review on gcc-patches went stale... On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:41 AM, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 --- Comment #6 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5) > Created attachment 44145 [details] > patch I am testing > > I am testing the attached. Please check how negative values can be handled > correctly or why

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 --- Comment #3 from Yuri Gribov --- It seems these lines in is_masked_range_test should be removed: if (wi::neg_p (val, TYPE_SIGN (type))) std::swap (*low, *high); Sadly there were no tests which tested negative constants. I'll bootstrap

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug middle-end/59521] __builtin_expect not effective in switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59521 --- Comment #14 from Yuri Gribov --- Patch posted in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg01016.html

[Bug middle-end/54123] inline functions not optimized as well as static inline

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54123 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug middle-end/81376] unnecessary cast before comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81376 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug middle-end/59521] __builtin_expect not effective in switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59521 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #41737|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug middle-end/59521] __builtin_expect not effective in switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59521 --- Comment #10 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9) > The patch works for me for the described case, but does not for PGO, which > should do the same based on real numbers: Problem here is that we optimize only

[Bug middle-end/59521] __builtin_expect not effective in switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59521 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #41698|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug middle-end/59521] __builtin_expect not effective in switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59521 --- Comment #7 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5) > Apart from that I added code that preserves > that probability in combine_predictions_for_bb. Yes, I did pretty much the same locally) > But still there's a

[Bug middle-end/41992] ICE on invalid dereferencing of void *

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41992 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug sanitizer/80027] ASAN breaks DT_RPATH $ORIGIN in dlopen()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80027 --- Comment #7 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Michael Thayer from comment #6) > Yuri, my initial description should still apply, though I haven't tested > this recently. The follow-up comments were Maxim trying to help me with a >

[Bug tree-optimization/69908] recognizing idioms that check for a buffer of all-zeros could make *much* better code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69908 --- Comment #7 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #6) > (In reply to Yuri Gribov from comment #5) > > Well, as we all know there are a lot of missing optimizations in GCC :) I > > think the real question is whether it's

[Bug tree-optimization/69908] recognizing idioms that check for a buffer of all-zeros could make *much* better code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69908 --- Comment #5 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #4) > (In reply to Yuri Gribov from comment #3) > > As noted in comments, this is more about adding new API to Glibc than GCC > > (they have corresponding > >

[Bug tree-optimization/69908] recognizing idioms that check for a buffer of all-zeros could make *much* better code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69908 --- Comment #3 from Yuri Gribov --- As noted in comments, this is more about adding new API to Glibc than GCC (they have corresponding https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19920 about this). So can this be closed?

[Bug middle-end/55546] Static functions that are fully inlined can end up in the object file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55546 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug sanitizer/80027] ASAN breaks DT_RPATH $ORIGIN in dlopen()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80027 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug sanitizer/78028] ASAN doesn't find memory leak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78028 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug sanitizer/61995] gcc 4.9.1 fails to compile with error in libsanitizer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61995 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug sanitizer/60892] GCC (libsanitizer) fails to build with Linux 2.6.21 headers.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60892 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug sanitizer/61771] Test failures in ASan testsuite on ARM Linux due to FP format mismatch between libasan and GCC.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61771 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug sanitizer/63245] renderMemorySnippet shouldn't show more bytes than the underlying type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63245 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #3

[Bug sanitizer/61693] [asan] is not intercepting aligned_alloc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61693 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug sanitizer/78654] ubsan can lead to excessive stack usage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78654 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug sanitizer/62307] -fsanitize=undefined doesn't pay attention to __attribute__((returns_nonnull))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62307 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug sanitizer/55316] gcc/libsanitizer/asan/asan_linux.cc:70:3: error: #error "Unsupported arch"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55316 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug sanitizer/58841] std::bad_alloc not thrown with -fsanitize=address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58841 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #1

[Bug middle-end/59521] __builtin_expect not effective in switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59521 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug middle-end/59521] __builtin_expect not effective in switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59521 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug sanitizer/77631] no symbols in backtrace shown by ASan when debug info is split

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77631 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug other/67165] please enable libbacktrace to work with compressed debug sections

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67165 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/57371] Simplify (double)i != 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57371 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug ipa/80565] [8 Regression] ICE at -O2 and -O3 in 32-bit mode (not 64-bit) on x86_64-linux-gnu (in edge_badness, at ipa-inline.c:1028)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80565 --- Comment #8 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5) > Why isn't the testcase checked into gcc testsuite? Sorry, forgot... Thanks for adding.

[Bug tree-optimization/79224] [7/8 Regression] Large C-Ray slowdown

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79224 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug bootstrap/80565] [8 Regression] ICE at -O2 and -O3 in 32-bit mode (not 64-bit) on x86_64-linux-gnu (in edge_badness, at ipa-inline.c:1028)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80565 --- Comment #4 from Yuri Gribov --- Chengnian, is this resolved?

[Bug bootstrap/80565] [8 Regression] ICE at -O2 and -O3 in 32-bit mode (not 64-bit) on x86_64-linux-gnu (in edge_badness, at ipa-inline.c:1028)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80565 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/67886] Incomplete optimization for virtual function call into freshly constructed object

, ||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #2 from Yuri Gribov --- There is a more important optimization hiding here. Standard suggests (in 3.8.7, in n3690.pdf) that when the same source variable is used for the instance pointer, it's dynamic type should not change

[Bug tree-optimization/67328] range test rather than single bit test for code testing enum values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67328 --- Comment #8 from Yuri Gribov --- Alan,(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #0) > It looks like gcc incorrectly prefers a range test. Alan, can we close this?

[Bug sanitizer/59454] blacklisting sanitized functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59454 --- Comment #5 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4) > I'm pasting here Jakub's opinion which I agree with: > > ``` > I'm strongly against the blacklist, that is not the way things are done in > GCC, you have

[Bug tree-optimization/81089] [8 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have integer_cst in register_edge_assert_for_2, at tree-vrp.c:5023

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81089 --- Comment #8 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #7) > You could try again: https://cfarm.tetaneutral.net/users/new/ > From what I understand they have a new admin team in place. > In the past the account

[Bug tree-optimization/81089] [8 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have integer_cst in register_edge_assert_for_2, at tree-vrp.c:5023

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81089 --- Comment #6 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #5) > (In reply to Yuri Gribov from comment #4) > > Created attachment 41551 [details] > > Draft patch > > > > Here's a draft patch. It fixes the repro but

[Bug tree-optimization/81089] [8 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have integer_cst in register_edge_assert_for_2, at tree-vrp.c:5023

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81089 --- Comment #4 from Yuri Gribov --- Created attachment 41551 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41551=edit Draft patch Here's a draft patch. It fixes the repro but bootstrapping will take some time on my notebook.

[Bug tree-optimization/81089] [8 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have integer_cst in register_edge_assert_for_2, at tree-vrp.c:5023

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81089 --- Comment #3 from Yuri Gribov --- Mine.

[Bug tree-optimization/67731] Combine of OR'ed bitfields should use bit-test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67731 --- Comment #6 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5) > On Fri, 9 Jun 2017, tetra2005 at gmail dot com wrote: > > > This should probly go to reassoc? Or better keep it in folder? > > As

[Bug tree-optimization/67731] Combine of OR'ed bitfields should use bit-test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67731 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug middle-end/61118] Spurious -Wclobbered warning generated by gcc 4.9.0 for pthread_cleanup_push

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118 --- Comment #11 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Tavian Barnes from comment #10) > > I think it is - __cancel_arg is assigned inside a while loop > > Specifically a do { } while(0); loop, which obviously has only one iteration. Actually I was

[Bug middle-end/61118] Spurious -Wclobbered warning generated by gcc 4.9.0 for pthread_cleanup_push

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118 --- Comment #9 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Tavian Barnes from comment #7) > But this condition is not met: > >> - They are changed between the setjmp() invocation and longjmp() call. I think it is - __cancel_arg is assigned inside a

[Bug middle-end/61118] Spurious -Wclobbered warning generated by gcc 4.9.0 for pthread_cleanup_push

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118 --- Comment #8 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Yuri Gribov from comment #6) > the warning is issued for variables which are alive after return > from longjmp Meant setjmp of course.

[Bug middle-end/61118] Spurious -Wclobbered warning generated by gcc 4.9.0 for pthread_cleanup_push

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #6

[Bug middle-end/56727] Recursive call goes through the PLT unnecessarily

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727 --- Comment #12 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10) > (In reply to Yuri Gribov from comment #9) > > (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #8) > > > Well, if my argument is correct, then GCC generates wrong

[Bug tree-optimization/67328] range test rather than single bit test for code testing enum values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67328 --- Comment #6 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #5) > PR 67731 maybe related or dup? Related but not a dup. This bug is caused by frontend folding two bitfield accesses to a single comparison which prevented generation

[Bug tree-optimization/67328] range test rather than single bit test for code testing enum values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67328 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug c/40528] Add a new ifunc attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40528 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/56727] Recursive call goes through the PLT unnecessarily

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727 --- Comment #9 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #8) > Well, if my argument is correct, then GCC generates wrong code for the very > first example in comment #0. I believe it does (see my #5, most probly author of

[Bug middle-end/56727] Recursive call goes through the PLT unnecessarily

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727 --- Comment #7 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #6) > Note that even without symbol aliases, such calls are not necessarily > self-recursive when 'f' is first called via dlsym with RTLD_NEXT or a > specific module

[Bug middle-end/56727] Recursive call goes through the PLT unnecessarily

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56727 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug middle-end/77622] __builtin_object_size incorrect for an out-of-bounds pointer prior to destination object

, ||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #1 from Yuri Gribov --- Sounds like an important use-case. I did some basic debugging and it turns out that "[3] - 10" is represented as POINTER_PLUS_EXPR with (size_t)-10 offset. For some reason tree-obj

[Bug tree-optimization/66826] Unused result from dlsym in constructor results in a segfault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66826 --- Comment #6 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Rich Felker from comment #5) > maybe there are workarounds glibc could do to prevent tco without needing a > new attribute... X-posted to Glibc BZ:

[Bug libgcc/67336] Verify pointers during stack unwind

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67336 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug libgcc/58120] libgcc.a and libgcc_eh.a have incorrect symbol visibility

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58120 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #1

[Bug tree-optimization/66826] Unused result from dlsym in constructor results in a segfault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66826 --- Comment #4 from Yuri Gribov --- As this is not a GCC bug I suggest you * close this issue (as not-a-bug?) * report to Glibc folks (perhaps they could do more checking of return address or at least document their calling convention

[Bug tree-optimization/66826] Unused result from dlsym in constructor results in a segfault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66826 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #3

[Bug tree-optimization/69908] recognizing idioms that check for a buffer of all-zeros could make *much* better code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69908 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug sanitizer/71445] libsanitizer build failure on aarch64-linux-gnu with recent glibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71445 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #7

[Bug other/69050] libbacktrace: bsearch over unsorted array in unit_addrs_search

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69050 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/69050] New: bsearch over unsorted array in unit_addrs_search

: other Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: tetra2005 at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Libbacktrace performs a bsearch with unit_addrs_search over address range array. Prior to this list is qsorted with unit_addrs_compare. The algorithms in these two functions

[Bug testsuite/66046] UBSan output pattern tests fail on target ARM board.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66046 --- Comment #2 from Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- The question is what's more appropriate. Doing this repetative work like this demotivates folks. But if Marek promises to never add newlines to his regexps again we can submit

[Bug c++/57271] ARM: gcc generates insufficient alignment for memory passed as extra argument for function return large composite type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57271 Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005

[Bug c/62141] [GCC-4.10.0][ASAN] ICE: Segmentation fault: 11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62141 Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005

[Bug sanitizer/61875] ATRIBUTE_NONNULL macro error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61875 Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005

[Bug middle-end/62140] [GCC-4.10.0][ASAN] ICE: : in build2_stat, at tree.c:4265

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62140 Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at redhat

[Bug testsuite/62060] g++.dg/tsan/cond_race.C triggers heap-use-after-free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62060 Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kcc at gcc dot

[Bug testsuite/62060] g++.dg/tsan/cond_race.C triggers heap-use-after-free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62060 Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot

[Bug sanitizer/61547] Invalid sanitization of trailing byte in __builtin_strlen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61547 Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005

[Bug sanitizer/61530] [4.10 Regression] segfault with asan

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61530 Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005

[Bug other/60681] Libbacktrace library doesn't work with QEMU in application mode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60681 Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005

[Bug other/60681] Libbacktrace library doesn't work with QEMU in application mode

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60681 --- Comment #3 from Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Yuri Gribov from comment #2) I think this needs to be fixed (or rather implemented) in QEMU. QEMU bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1299190

[Bug sanitizer/59585] Tests failing due to trailing newline

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59585 --- Comment #4 from Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Yup, thanks.

[Bug sanitizer/59454] blacklisting sanitized functions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59454 --- Comment #2 from Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Proper link to Fortran attr bug: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41209

[Bug sanitizer/59454] blacklisting sanitized functions

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59454 Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005

[Bug sanitizer/58718] Invalid check in libsanitizer

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58718 --- Comment #7 from Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #6) Can we keep this bug in one place, please? Let https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/issues/detail?id=239 be the primary one

[Bug sanitizer/58680] Spurious warnings from libasan

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58680 --- Comment #2 from Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- /* Answering from my personal account */ According to http://marc.info/?t=13645834152 this may not be a problem for Android. It seems that NDK links shared libs with -Bsymbolic

[Bug c/41809] escaping address of packed field should trigger warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41809 --- Comment #3 from Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com 2012-10-18 11:38:45 UTC --- Created attachment 28481 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28481 Another testcase Testcase which demonstrates more issues.

[Bug c/41809] escaping address of packed field should trigger warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41809 Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005

[Bug lto/53831] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Virtuals missing in LTO symtab

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53831 --- Comment #23 from Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com 2012-07-10 15:34:02 UTC --- The C++ Standard says that an inline function shall be defined in every translation unit in which it is used (n1905, 7.1.2). The test in question violates

[Bug lto/53831] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Virtuals missing in LTO symtab

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53831 --- Comment #22 from Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com 2012-07-04 12:32:08 UTC --- For non fat (slim) LTO builds you need to use these tools yes So it seems that original testcase with fat files which used plain ar is indeed correct and we

[Bug lto/53831] Inline virtuals missing in LTO symtab

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53831 --- Comment #3 from Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com 2012-07-03 10:45:09 UTC --- I don't think linker can do much after gcc removes the symbol from symtab. BTW it would help a lot if linker verified that LTO and ELF symtabs actually match

[Bug lto/53831] Inline virtuals missing in LTO symtab

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53831 --- Comment #6 from Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com 2012-07-03 12:16:21 UTC --- First of all note that we are talking about _ZN1C1fEv (not _ZN1C1gEv!) here. I agree that linker doesn't mention it in the resolution file but I think

[Bug lto/53831] Inline virtuals missing in LTO symtab

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53831 --- Comment #10 from Yuri Gribov tetra2005 at gmail dot com 2012-07-03 12:59:01 UTC --- if I use -fno-fat-lto-objects I get a maybe more easily to debug linker failure I guess that's because in this case archive symtab doesn't reference any

  1   2   >