https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337
--- Comment #15 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
In gcc 9 it is pretty easy to avoid this warning by adding an assert or
builtin_unreachable and we have done that in seastar.
Unfortunately the warning still shows up with gcc 8. Is there a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337
--- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor ---
Changing the size to zero is a variant of one the solutions I was referring to
in comment #12: replacing the call with __builtin_unreachable. Rather than
(possibly) eliminating (most of) the path leading up
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337
Tobias Schlüter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tobi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
One of the approaches we have been discussing is replacing these invalid calls
with __builtin_trap or __builtin_unreachable, perhaps optionally preceded by
__builtin_warning ("specified size exceeds maximum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Rafael Avila de Espindola from comment #10)
> Maybe we should have a general flag that disables all warnings where gcc
> cannot prove that there is a path from a function entry to the broken
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337
--- Comment #10 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #9)
> The warning is very simple: it just looks for excessive sizes in calls
> emitted in the optimized IL. When the call is there (either because it's in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning is very simple: it just looks for excessive sizes in calls emitted
in the optimized IL. When the call is there (either because it's in the source
code as is or because it's been synthesized by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337
Rafael Avila de Espindola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337
Rafael Avila de Espindola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45710|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337
Rafael Avila de Espindola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337
Rafael Avila de Espindola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #45704|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337
--- Comment #3 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
> GCC can't see that drop3() cannot be called with name.size() < 3, and in
> resize, the condition (n > size()) can only be true only when name.size() <
> 3 so n - size() is unavoidably too
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337
--- Comment #1 from Rafael Avila de Espindola ---
The original testcase is from https://github.com/scylladb/seastar/issues/598
15 matches
Mail list logo
