[Bug sanitizer/88684] Please make SANITIZER_NON_UNIQUE_TYPEINFO a runtime flag (or always true)

2019-01-16 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88684 --- Comment #11 from Rafael Avila de Espindola --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10) > > That said, I'm willing to ack it for GCC9 even then if upstream comes up > > with something or if they don't care, eventually as a GCC only tweak.

[Bug c++/88897] New: Bogus maybe-uninitialized warning on class field

2019-01-17 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: rafael at espindo dot la Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 45452 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45452=edit testcase Compiling the attached testcase with "g++ -c -O1 -Wall test.ii&q

[Bug middle-end/88897] Bogus maybe-uninitialized warning on class field

2019-01-18 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88897 --- Comment #3 from Rafael Avila de Espindola --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > Some of the time, the uninitialized is due to using the object after the > lifetime of the object has gone out of scope. I have not checked if that

[Bug middle-end/88897] Bogus maybe-uninitialized warning on class field

2019-01-21 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88897 Rafael Avila de Espindola changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenther at suse dot de

[Bug middle-end/88897] Bogus maybe-uninitialized warning on class field

2019-01-20 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88897 Rafael Avila de Espindola changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #45452|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c++/88897] Bogus maybe-uninitialized warning on class field

2019-01-17 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88897 --- Comment #1 from Rafael Avila de Espindola --- Created attachment 45453 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45453=edit reduced the test a bit more It now compiles with older gcc too. The warning is there in gcc 7, but not

[Bug c++/88509] New: Missing optimization of tls initialization

2018-12-14 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: rafael at espindo dot la Target Milestone: --- Given struct foo { foo(); }; static thread_local foo bar; foo *f() { return } foo *g() { static thread_local foo *bar_ptr; if (bar_ptr == nullptr) { [&]() { bar

[Bug c++/88509] Missing optimization of tls initialization

2018-12-15 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88509 --- Comment #3 from Rafael Avila de Espindola --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > I must say I don't understand your suggestion. bar is not a pointer and its > address is non-NULL no matter whether it has been already initialized

[Bug c++/88232] New: Please implement -Winfinite-recursion

2018-11-27 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: rafael at espindo dot la Target Milestone: --- This may sound like a silly warning, but it actually very useful in finding missing member functions in CRTP. Given the testcase template struct C { void foo() { static_cast

[Bug sanitizer/88684] New: Please make SANITIZER_NON_UNIQUE_TYPEINFO a runtime flag (or always true)

2019-01-03 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
: normal Priority: P3 Component: sanitizer Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: rafael at espindo dot la CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/88443] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wstringop-overflow warnings

2019-02-13 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443 Bug 88443 depends on bug 89337, which changed state. Bug 89337 Summary: Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/89337] Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code

2019-02-13 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337 Rafael Avila de Espindola changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #45704|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug middle-end/89337] Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code

2019-02-13 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337 Rafael Avila de Espindola changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/89337] Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code

2019-02-13 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
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

[Bug middle-end/89337] Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code

2019-02-14 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337 Rafael Avila de Espindola changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #45710|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug middle-end/89337] Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code

2019-02-14 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337 Rafael Avila de Espindola changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/88443] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wstringop-overflow warnings

2019-02-14 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443 Bug 88443 depends on bug 89337, which changed state. Bug 89337 Summary: Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/89337] New: Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code

2019-02-13 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
ty: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: rafael at espindo dot la Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 45704 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45704=edit testcase In the attached testcase the f

[Bug middle-end/89337] Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code

2019-02-13 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
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

[Bug middle-end/89337] Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code

2019-02-15 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
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