https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #20 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #19 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Feb 11 17:44:05 2019
New Revision: 268775
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268775=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88771 - Misleading -Werror=array-bounds error
gcc/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #18 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #17 from Martin Sebor ---
Just for reference, GCC goes to a lot of trouble to diagnose this sort of thing
and issues one of three warnings for this code, depending on which one is
enabled. The first two are issued by the wrestrict
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Can we (did we already?) fix the diagnostic with respect to the range printing
as said in comment#5? I'd defer the rest. Maybe we can even have
jump-threading cancel paths that would introduce these kind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
>
> --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #12)
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
> >
> > --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
>
> --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
> I understand what jump threading does but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
I understand what jump threading does but I don't know enough about how it
works to have a clear idea how viable marking up the created statements would
be. To avoid false negatives it would need to make it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
It might be possible for some. I'm not sure how successful it would be for
others. The thread_jumps pass runs four times and moving the warn_restrict
pass before its first instance results in dozens of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
Yeah, on GCC users' side I think there's a demand for both: treating UB as
unreachable (e.g. on tiny systems with heavy program size constraints) and
transforming UB to a trap briefly annotated with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, that's exactly right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
That said, the size range in the warning output is wrong. It should be just
4294967295. The warning should probably also be changed to -Wstringop-overflow
which diagnoses both out-of-bounds writes and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning is triggered by the excessive size argument in the strncpy call.
The excessive size makes the call invalid regardless of the values of the two
pointer arguments.
This happens both with the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
Original test-case started to produce the warning since r263662.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 45390
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45390=edit
original test-case
Original test that fails just with -m32:
$ gcc om-original.i -c -O2 -Werror=array-bounds -m32
In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2019-1-9
CC|
22 matches
Mail list logo
