On 5/13/21 10:53 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 5/14/21 12:35 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 5/13/21 11:36 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 5/13/21 11:20 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 5/13/21 3:55 AM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
A logic bug in the handling of PHI arguments in compute_objsize
that
On 5/13/21 1:28 PM, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
Ping.
On 4/28/21 9:32 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
-Wdeprecated-copy was depending only on the state of the warning at the
point where we call the function, making it hard to use #pragma
diagnostic
to suppress the warning for a particular
On 5/13/21 1:26 PM, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
Ping.
On 5/1/21 12:29 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Like my recent patch to add ovl_range and lkp_range in the C++ front end,
this patch adds the tsi_range adaptor for using C++11 range-based
'for' with
a STATEMENT_LIST, e.g.
for (tree s
On 5/13/21 11:36 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 5/13/21 11:20 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 5/13/21 3:55 AM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
A logic bug in the handling of PHI arguments in compute_objsize
that are all null pointers lets an incompletely populated struct
be used in a way that
On 5/13/21 1:03 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 5/11/2021 1:49 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
The attached change teaches the uninitialized pass about
__builtin_stack_restore and __builtin___asan_mark to avoid two
classes of -Wuninitialized false negatives.
Richard, you already approved the
On 5/13/21 11:20 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 5/13/21 3:55 AM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
A logic bug in the handling of PHI arguments in compute_objsize
that are all null pointers lets an incompletely populated struct
be used in a way that triggers an assertion causing an ICE.
The
On 5/13/21 6:05 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
The change is about error handling.
Ready to be installed?
Thanks,
Martin
PR middle-end/100504
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
* c-attribs.c (handle_target_clones_attribute): Expect a string
argument to target_clone argument.
gcc/testsui
A logic bug in the handling of PHI arguments in compute_objsize
that are all null pointers lets an incompletely populated struct
be used in a way that triggers an assertion causing an ICE.
The attached patch corrects that by having compute_objsize fail
when the struct isn't fully populated (when
An erroneous VLA parameter bound in a function redeclaration causes
an ICE as the -Wvla-parameter is trying to format a diagnostic after
an error has already been issued. The attached change prevents
such parameters from being considered.
This patch is for trunk and GCC 11.
Martin
PR c/100550 -
hange fixes just the narrow problem
that impacts Glibc. I have committed it to 10-branch in r10-9819.
Martin
commit 7b6740756c9ca64dd01097b629c19e26d3d6a504
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed May 12 15:45:44 2021 -0600
PR middle-end/100571 - bogus -Wstringop-overflow with VLA of elements larger
On 5/7/21 4:21 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 12:17 PM Richard Biener wrote:
canonicalize_constructor_val was setting TREE_ADDRESSABLE on bases
of ADDR_EXPRs but that's futile when we're dealing with CTOR values
in debug stmts. This rips out the code which wa
On 5/12/21 2:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
This rejects a number of vector components that does not fit an 'int'
which is an internal limitation of RTVEC.
This regresses gcc.dg/attr-vector_size.c which checks for much larger
supported vectors. Not sure what to do about this - I'll also note
the
Ping 2:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/568901.html
On 5/3/21 3:50 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/568901.html
On 4/27/21 9:52 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 4/27/21 8:04 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 3
On 2/12/21 1:55 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 1:35 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
While trawling through old bugs I came across one from 2005: PR 21433
- The COMPONENT_REF case of expand_expr_real_1 is probably wrong.
The report looks correct in that argument 0 in
The attached change teaches the uninitialized pass about
__builtin_stack_restore and __builtin___asan_mark to avoid two
classes of -Wuninitialized false negatives.
Richard, you already approved the __builtin_stack_restore change
in the bug but I figured I'd submit a patch with both changes for
ap
On 5/6/21 8:32 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 5/5/21 9:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 1:32 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
With no optimization, -Wformat-overflow and -Wformat-truncation
runs early to detect a subset of simple bugs. But as it turns out,
the pass
On 5/5/21 1:32 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 4:20 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
Even when explicitly enabled, -Walloca-larger-than doesn't run
unless optimization is enabled as well. This prevents diagnosing
alloca calls with constant arguments in excess o
On 5/4/21 1:44 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi!
genericize_spaceship genericizes i <=> j to approximately
({ int c; if (i == j) c = 0; else if (i < j) c = -1; else c = 1; c; })
for strong ordering and
({ int c; if (i == j) c = 0; else if (i < j) c = -1; else if (i > j) c = 1;
else c
Even when explicitly enabled, -Walloca-larger-than doesn't run
unless optimization is enabled as well. This prevents diagnosing
alloca calls with constant arguments in excess of the limit that
could otherwise be flagged even at -O0, making the warning less
consistent and less useful than is possi
With no optimization, -Wformat-overflow and -Wformat-truncation
runs early to detect a subset of simple bugs. But as it turns out,
the pass runs just a tad too early, before SSA. That causes it to
miss a class of problems that can easily be detected once code is
in SSA form, and I would expect m
Ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/568901.html
On 4/27/21 9:52 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 4/27/21 8:04 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 3:59 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 4/27/21 1:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 2:46 AM Martin
On 4/29/21 6:22 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:12 AM Martin Liška wrote:
Now living in the 21st century, we don't longer need using the following tuple:
cl_decoded_option **decoded_options,
unsigned int *decoded_options_count)
but we can rather use a sta
On 4/28/21 12:53 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 1:30 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
The free_lang_data pass is defined entirely in tree.c. Its code
changes only rarely (only 13% commits to tree.c), and unlike
the rest of tree.c, is even more rarely read. The pass
When the compute_objsize_r() function sees a pointer whose target
it can't determine it sets the size of the pointed to object to
the maximum but it doesn't clear the base0 flag to indicate that
the offset need not be zero-based. This is done when the source
is in SSA form but not before. Since
On 4/28/21 3:24 AM, Geng Qi via Gcc-patches wrote:
gcc/ChangeLog:
* doc/options.texi (Negative): Fix the discription so that it matches
the code implementation of prune_options().
---
gcc/doc/options.texi | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/g
The free_lang_data pass is defined entirely in tree.c. Its code
changes only rarely (only 13% commits to tree.c), and unlike
the rest of tree.c, is even more rarely read. The pass is also
right in the middle of tree.c, surrounded by various utility
functions many of which do tend to be frequentl
On 4/27/21 8:04 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 3:59 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 4/27/21 1:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 2:46 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
PR 90904 notes that auto_vec is unsafe to copy and assign because
the class manages
On 4/27/21 1:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 2:46 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
PR 90904 notes that auto_vec is unsafe to copy and assign because
the class manages its own memory but doesn't define (or delete)
either special function. Since I first ran int
PR 90904 notes that auto_vec is unsafe to copy and assign because
the class manages its own memory but doesn't define (or delete)
either special function. Since I first ran into the problem,
auto_vec has grown a move ctor and move assignment from
a dynamically-allocated vec but still no copy ctor
The VLA bounds that are included by the C front end to attribute
access added to functions with VLA parameters to help detect
redeclaratations of function with "mismatched" VLA bounds are
cleared by the free_lang_data pass before the IL reaches the middle
end. The clearing was done to fix pr97172
On 4/22/21 9:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 at 15:59, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 4/22/21 2:52 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021, 08:47 Martin Liška, wrote:
On 4/21/21 6:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 4/21/21 2:15 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>&
On 4/22/21 2:52 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021, 08:47 Martin Liška, wrote:
On 4/21/21 6:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 4/21/21 2:15 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> It's addressing the following Clang warning:
&
On 4/21/21 2:58 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 10:09 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 4/14/21 4:39 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
commit 87c753ac241f25d222d46ba1ac66ceba89d6a200
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Aug 21 09:42:49 2020 -0700
x86: Add target("general-regs-only") function
On 4/14/21 4:39 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
commit 87c753ac241f25d222d46ba1ac66ceba89d6a200
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Aug 21 09:42:49 2020 -0700
x86: Add target("general-regs-only") function attribute
is incomplete since it is impossible to call integer intrinsics from
a function with general-re
On 4/21/21 1:30 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 12:39 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
commit 87c753ac241f25d222d46ba1ac66ceba89d6a200
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Aug 21 09:42:49 2020 -0700
x86: Add target("general-regs-only") function attribute
is incomplete since it is impossible to
On 4/21/21 2:15 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
It's addressing the following Clang warning:
cp/lex.c:170:45: warning: result of comparison of constant 64 with expression
of type 'enum ovl_op_code' is always true
[-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare]
Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linu
On 4/19/21 3:13 PM, Koning, Paul wrote:
On Apr 19, 2021, at 4:50 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On 4/19/21 2:03 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Mon, 2021-04-19 at 13:47 -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
The selftests at the end of many source files are only rarely read
or
On 4/19/21 2:03 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Mon, 2021-04-19 at 13:47 -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
The selftests at the end of many source files are only rarely read
or modified, but they contribute to the size/complexity of the files
and make moving within the rest of the code
The selftests at the end of many source files are only rarely read
or modified, but they contribute to the size/complexity of the files
and make moving within the rest of the code more difficult.
Would anyone be opposed to moving any of them into new files of their
own? E.g., those in tree.c to t
2dbbbe893f75f587c48111ab4c97cf5e74fb91bb
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Thu Apr 15 14:09:56 2021 -0600
PR middle-end/89230 - Bogus uninited usage warning with printf
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gcc.dg/uninit-pr89230-1.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/uninit-pr89230-2.c: Same.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg
On 4/15/21 5:01 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
This adds a deprecation note to the undocumented gimple-builder.h
API only used by asan and sancov.
Pushed.
2021-04-15 Richard Biener
* gimple-builder.h: Add deprecation note.
---
gcc/gimple-builder.h | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(
On 4/14/21 2:11 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 21:50, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
The issue has been fixed so r11-8161 just adds the test case:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8084ab15a3e300e3b2c537e56e0f3a1b00778aec
Hi,
This new test fails on arm (and aarch64 with
The bug was fixed years ago. r11-8162 adds the test case to the test
suite.
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:af7128621e54f04b90589bb0c3e1ef271c239265
Martin
The issue has been fixed so r11-8161 just adds the test case:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8084ab15a3e300e3b2c537e56e0f3a1b00778aec
Martin
On 4/13/21 10:07 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 4/8/2021 4:15 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
The C front end ordinarily merges function type attributes upon
the redeclaration of a function but it doesn't do that for those
at local scope, unless the declaration refers to a built-in.
Be
On 4/12/21 7:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 4:55 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 4/12/21 3:53 PM, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 2:21 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 5:11 PM H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
wrote:
Add inline_ignore_target
On 4/12/21 3:53 PM, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 2:21 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 5:11 PM H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
wrote:
Add inline_ignore_target function attribute to inform the compiler that
target specific option mismatch on functions with t
The false positive warning disappeared years ago. r11-8099 adds
a test but I leave the bug open since it's a request for a better
suppression mechanism that what's available in GCC today.
Martin
On 4/9/21 10:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 10:28:47AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
pthread_setspecific second argument is const void *, so that one can
call it even with pointers to const, but the function only stores the
pointer and does nothing else, so the new assumption
On 4/9/21 2:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi!
pthread_setspecific second argument is const void *, so that one can
call it even with pointers to const, but the function only stores the
pointer and does nothing else, so the new assumption of -Wmaybe-uninitialized
that functions taki
The C front end ordinarily merges function type attributes upon
the redeclaration of a function but it doesn't do that for those
at local scope, unless the declaration refers to a built-in.
Because the new -Warray-parameter warning relies on the internal
access attribute on the type of the functi
The attached patch fixes a couple of typos. Not sure they qualify
as regressions but it seems like a trivial fix worth making even
now. I'll go ahead and commit it as obvious if no-one objects.
Martin
PR middle-end/99883 - A couple of minor misspellings
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
* c.opt (Wmism
On 4/2/21 9:40 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
This breaks bootstrap on riscv64:
In function ‘alloca_type_and_limit alloca_call_type(range_query&, gimple*, bool
’,
inlined from ‘virtual unsigned int pass_walloca::execute(function*)’ at
../../gcc/gimple-ssa-warn-alloca.c:295:25:
../../gcc/gimple-ss
On 4/1/21 7:30 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hey.
I've returned to the David's project and I'm willing to finish his transition
effort.
I believe using Sphinx documentation can rapidly improve readability, both HTML
and PDF version,
of various GCC manuals ([1]). I've spent some time working on the D
r11-7932 adds a test case for another ancient -Wuninitialized bug
fixed eons ago:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:31199d95de1304e200554bbf98b2d8a6a7298bec
Martin
The bug has been fixed for a few years now. r11-7869 adds the test
for it: https://gcc.gnu.org/g:980b12cc81979e52f491bf0dfe961d30c07fe864
Martin
The bug was fixed in GCC 5.0 but never resolved. I've added a test
case in the commit below and resolved it:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e88ca9f42306e291d3cb2d34dd7f2b017a3c1e52
Martin
All the test cases in the bug but one pass. The one that doesn't
seems sufficiently different to track separately. I've committed
a test with the test cases in r11-7840 and resolved the bug.
Martin
PR tree-optimization/44547 - -Wuninitialized reports false warning
in nested switch statements, has been resolved for some time. In
r11-7839 I've committed the test and resolved the bug as fixed.
Martin
On 3/24/21 10:40 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 09:45:31AM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
E.g., OEP_IGNORE_MEMBER_OFFSET or OEP_SAME_MEMBER_OFFSET (for
the converse of the first) or something like that, but hopefully
you get the idea.
Neither of these look like a
On 3/24/21 5:44 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi!
I'd like to ping the
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-March/566821.html
P1 PR99565 fix.
Marek has acked the gcc/c/ and gcc/c-family/ part of that patch, but it still
has gcc/cp/ and gcc/ parts that weren't acked.
If you
On 3/17/21 6:00 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 3/17/21 4:40 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
[*] Does -Wformat-diag really trigger when using older GCC to build?
I thought it only triggered in stage 2 and 3 when using the same GCC
to rebuild itself.
I always end up hopelessly confused by anything
On 3/20/21 10:48 AM, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 3/18/2021 4:18 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
Ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/564483.html
The review of this patch digressed into a design discussion of a new,
more capable implementation of -Wstrict
On 3/19/21 12:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 02:17:39PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
--- gcc/cp/decl.c.jj2021-03-16 21:17:41.014498713 +0100
+++ gcc/cp/decl.c 2021-03-18 19:31:22.430149523 +0100
@@ -8629,6 +8629,11 @@ cp_finish_decomp (tree decl, tre
Ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/564483.html
The review of this patch digressed into a design discussion of a new,
more capable implementation of -Wstrict-aliasing, but the proposed
patch turning just this one instance of -Warray-bounds into
-Wstrict-aliasing and makin
On 3/18/21 8:58 AM, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 3/18/2021 8:37 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi!
Similar issue as in strlenopt-73.c, various spots in this test rely
on MOVE_MAX >= 8, this time it uses a target selector to pick up a couple
of targets, and all of them but power
On 3/18/21 4:46 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hey.
Recently, I noticed a cumbersome construct we use for string startswith
function
(most notably in a situation when the prefix is a string literal).
Commonly used patterns are:
1) strncmp (arg, "--sysroot=", 10) == 0
2) strncmp (name, "not found", s
On 3/17/21 4:01 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
I've checked in this patch, after having received a report a few days
ago that the nios2 back end was not building. Most of the changes here
are purely cosmetic.
Swapping out my nios2 maintainer hat for the documentation maintainer
one, though: the
On 3/17/21 1:40 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/17/21 3:03 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 3/16/21 2:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/11/21 1:06 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
More extensive testing of the patch I just committed in r11-7563 to
avoid the false positive -Warray-bounds on accesses to members
On 3/16/21 2:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/11/21 1:06 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
More extensive testing of the patch I just committed in r11-7563 to
avoid the false positive -Warray-bounds on accesses to members of
virtual bases has exposed a couple of problems that cause many false
negatives
On 3/17/21 2:36 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 06:28:46PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
It seems sort of "inverted:" I'd expect OEP_LEXICOGRAPHIC on its
own to do a lexicographical comparison, without having to set
an additional bit to ask for
On 3/16/21 11:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi!
Honza has fairly recently changed operand_equal_p to compare
DECL_FIELD_OFFSET for COMPONENT_REFs when comparing addresses.
As the first testcase in this patch shows, while that is very nice
for optimizations, for the -Wduplicated-bra
On 3/16/21 3:08 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 3/15/21 9:57 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Any plans to integrate it into the testsuite? (That way we presumably
wouldn't need to remember to run it by hand.)
Likely not, I'm not so big friend with DejaGNU.
Are you willing to help me with that?
On 3/12/21 7:02 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 3/12/21 2:56 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Fri, 2021-03-12 at 09:45 +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
Identified by my check that compares documentation of params
with content of --help=param output.
Pushed as obvious.
Martin
Thanks.
Which check is this, BT
On 3/12/21 6:27 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 07:37:46PM -0700, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
Accesses to zero-length arrays continue to be diagnosed (except for
trailing arrays of unknown objects), as are nonempty accesses to empty
types.
The warning message for (3
On 3/12/21 6:52 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 03:07:38PM -0700, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
The gimple_call_alloc_size() function is documented to "return null
when STMT is not a call to a valid allocation function" but the code
assumes STMT is a call
More extensive testing of the patch I just committed in r11-7563 to
avoid the false positive -Warray-bounds on accesses to members of
virtual bases has exposed a couple of problems that cause many false
negatives for even basic bugs like:
typedef struct A { int i; } A;
void* g (void)
{
On 3/9/21 6:46 PM, David Lamparter wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:28:15AM +0100, David Lamparter wrote:
The TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT() here was, for casts to a typedef'd type name,
resulting in all information about the typedef's involvement getting
lost. This drops necessary information for warnin
The gimple_call_alloc_size() function is documented to "return null
when STMT is not a call to a valid allocation function" but the code
assumes STMT is a call statement, causing the function to ICE when
it isn't.
The attached patch changes the function to fulfill its contract and
return null als
on x86_64-linux.
On 2/18/21 1:55 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/18/21 11:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 07:00:52PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
The size of the VLA is zero regardless of its bound and accessing
it is invalid so the warning is expected.
Yes, some warning, but n
On 3/5/21 3:03 PM, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 3/4/21 9:37 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
This PR complains that we issue a -Wconversion warning in
template struct X {};
template X foo();
saying "conversion from 'long unsigned int' to 'int' may change value".
While it's not techn
On 3/3/21 10:33 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/3/21 6:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
...
I see what you mean, thanks, but I can't think of a test case to
trigger a false negative due to the smaller offset. Any suggestions?
My only ideas involve undefined behavior, casting the address
On 3/3/21 3:31 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 9:23 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 3/2/21 3:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:39 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
The hack I put in compute_objsize() last January for pr93200 isn't
quite correct
On 3/2/21 7:11 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/1/21 6:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/24/21 5:35 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/23/21 6:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/23/21 2:52 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/23/21 11:02 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
[CC Jason for any further comments/clarification
In PR 99276 a translator points out malformed warning message newly
introduced into GCC 11. In r11-7460 I have committed the attached
patch to remove the stray text.
Martin
commit e7ca37649e4f322e7512c6d11813992c61b0a4b3
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Tue Mar 2 13:37:01 2021 -0700
PR middle
On 3/2/21 9:52 AM, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 3/1/21 1:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
The default diagnostic tree printer relies on dump_generic_node which
for some reason manages to clobber the diagnostic pretty-printer state
so we see garbled diagnostics like
/home/rguenther/src/trunk
On 3/2/21 3:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:39 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
The hack I put in compute_objsize() last January for pr93200 isn't
quite correct. It happened to suppress the false positive there
but, due to what looks like a thinko on my
Ping 5:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/564059.html
On 2/22/21 5:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping 4:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/564059.html
On 2/14/21 5:43 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping 3:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January
On 3/1/21 1:33 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/1/21 12:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/24/21 8:13 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/24/21 5:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
In r11-6900 (PR 98646 - static_cast confuses -Wnonnull) we decided
that issuing -Wnonnull for dereferencing the result of
On 2/25/21 4:40 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
I think the underlying problem is the same. We're getting a size
that doesn't correspond to what's actually being accessed, and it
happens because of the virtual inheritance. In pr97595 Jason
sugge
On 2/24/21 5:35 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/23/21 6:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/23/21 2:52 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/23/21 11:02 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
[CC Jason for any further comments/clarification]
On 2/9/21 10:49 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 4:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote
The documentation change made for pr83023 - branch probabilities
pessimize malloc, introduced an ambiguity into the description of
attribute malloc pointed out in pr99295.
The change suggests that GCC assumes that most calls only to malloc
and calloc but not to realloc return non-null. Subsequen
On 2/24/21 8:13 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/24/21 5:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
In r11-6900 (PR 98646 - static_cast confuses -Wnonnull) we decided
that issuing -Wnonnull for dereferencing the result of dynamic_cast
was helpful despite the false positives it causes when the pointer
is
On 2/25/21 9:06 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 09:57, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 8:53 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
Adding attribute access to declarations of functions that take
VLA arguments relies on the front end
On 2/24/21 5:13 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 11:50:10AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
In the PR using NOP_EXPR has been discussed as one possibility and has been
rejected because at expansion it will emit a superfluous & 1 operation.
I still think it is a good
In r11-6900 (PR 98646 - static_cast confuses -Wnonnull) we decided
that issuing -Wnonnull for dereferencing the result of dynamic_cast
was helpful despite the false positives it causes when the pointer
is guaranteed not to be null because of a prior test.
The test case in PR 99251 along with the
On 2/23/21 2:52 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/23/21 11:02 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
[CC Jason for any further comments/clarification]
On 2/9/21 10:49 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 4:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2
On 2/22/21 7:03 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/22/21 8:00 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/22/21 4:08 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/13/21 7:31 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The test case in PR 99074 invokes dynamic_cast with the this pointer
in a non-static member function called on a null pointer. The
Adding attribute access to declarations of functions that take
VLA arguments relies on the front end adding attribute "arg spec"
to each VLA parameter. Like the VLA bounds in attribute access,
the same VLA bounds in attribute "arg spec" can cause trouble
during LTO streaming which expects front e
[CC Jason for any further comments/clarification]
On 2/9/21 10:49 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 4:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/8/21 2:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 12:59 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 1/19/21
501 - 600 of 3588 matches
Mail list logo
