anks,
> Benjamin.
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Benjamin Priour
> Date: Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 8:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] analyzer: Standalone OOB-warning [PR109437, PR109439]
> To: Maxim Kuvyrkov
> Cc: , Benjamin Priour , <
> dmalc...@redhat.com&g
,
Benjamin.
-- Forwarded message -
From: Benjamin Priour
Date: Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] analyzer: Standalone OOB-warning [PR109437, PR109439]
To: Maxim Kuvyrkov
Cc: , Benjamin Priour , <
dmalc...@redhat.com>
Hi,
Yes of course, I tested many days ago since
Hi,
Yes of course, I tested many days ago since regtesting takes several days
on my box, I should have retested !
But I got an account for the compile farm today, so I'm on it immediately,
I also see a divergence in the warnings on my box.
Thanks for the report !
Sincerely sorry,
Benjamin.
On
> On Jun 6, 2023, at 15:48, Benjamin Priour via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
> From: Benjamin Priour
>
> This patch enchances -Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds that is no longer paired
> with a -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value on out-of-bounds-read.
>
> This also fixes PR analyzer/109437.
> Before
On Wed, 2023-06-07 at 13:38 +0200, Benjamin Priour wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 8:37 PM David Malcolm
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2023-06-06 at 18:05 +0200, Benjamin Priour wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > [Looks like you droppped the mailing list from the recipients; was
> > that
> > intentional?]
> >
On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 8:37 PM David Malcolm wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2023-06-06 at 18:05 +0200, Benjamin Priour wrote:
[...]
> [Looks like you droppped the mailing list from the recipients; was that
> intentional?]
>
Not at all, just me missing the reply all button.
> >
> > I indeed bootstrapped
On Tue, 2023-06-06 at 13:48 +0200, priour...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Benjamin Priour
Hi Benjamin, thanks for this patch.
Overall it look great.
You didn't say what testing you did on the patch. Typically when
preparing a patch for the mailing list we do a bootstrap build of gcc
with the
From: Benjamin Priour
This patch enchances -Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds that is no longer paired
with a -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value on out-of-bounds-read.
This also fixes PR analyzer/109437.
Before there could always be at most one OOB-read warning per frame because
