On 6/30/20 11:59 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
Why did you mark PR96008 as a duplicate? The ICE is a duplicate, but
the wrong IL is a C++ FE bug.
They're both caused by the same problem: the -Wnonnull warning
is triggered by the C++ FE bug (assuming it is one) and the ICE
by the C++ pretty printer
Why did you mark PR96008 as a duplicate? The ICE is a duplicate, but
the wrong IL is a C++ FE bug.
Thanks, David
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:45 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 6/30/20 10:47 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > Also, cpp1y/lambda-generic-69078-1.C elicits a similar, new warning:
> >
> > FA
On 6/30/20 10:47 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
Also, cpp1y/lambda-generic-69078-1.C elicits a similar, new warning:
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1y/lambda-generic-69078-1.C -std=gnu++14 (test for
excess errors)
Excess errors:
g++.dg/cpp1y/lambda-generic-69078-1.C:23:13: warning: 'this' pointer
null [-Wnonnull]
On 6/30/20 10:22 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 10:12 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 6/30/20 8:47 AM, David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches wrote:
The unexpected warning is
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/analyzer/pr94028.C:28:21: warning: use of
possibly-NULL '' where non-null expected [CWE-690]
Also, cpp1y/lambda-generic-69078-1.C elicits a similar, new warning:
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1y/lambda-generic-69078-1.C -std=gnu++14 (test for
excess errors)
Excess errors:
g++.dg/cpp1y/lambda-generic-69078-1.C:23:13: warning: 'this' pointer
null [-Wnonnull]
Thanks, David
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 12:23
On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 10:12 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 6/30/20 8:47 AM, David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > The unexpected warning is
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/analyzer/pr94028.C:28:21: warning: use of
> > possibly-NULL '' where non-null expected [CWE-690]
> > [-Wanalyzer-possible-nu
On 6/30/20 8:47 AM, David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches wrote:
The unexpected warning is
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/analyzer/pr94028.C:28:21: warning: use of
possibly-NULL '' where non-null expected [CWE-690]
[-Wanalyzer-possible-null-argument]
This is the same location as one of the existing "leak" warni
On 6/30/20 8:47 AM, David Edelsohn via Gcc-patches wrote:
The unexpected warning is
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/analyzer/pr94028.C:28:21: warning: use of
possibly-NULL '' where non-null expected [CWE-690]
[-Wanalyzer-possible-null-argument]
This is the same location as one of the existing "leak" warni
The unexpected warning is
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/analyzer/pr94028.C:28:21: warning: use of
possibly-NULL '' where non-null expected [CWE-690]
[-Wanalyzer-possible-null-argument]
This is the same location as one of the existing "leak" warnings.
How would you like pr94028.C to be adjusted in the tes
On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 09:51 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> The changes to the non-null warning now produce an additional warning
> for analyzer/pr94028.C on one of the "leak" lines. This causes new
> failures on trunk.
Hi David
Do you have the output to hand? What is the full text of the new
di
The changes to the non-null warning now produce an additional warning
for analyzer/pr94028.C on one of the "leak" lines. This causes new
failures on trunk.
Because non-null is not the purpose of the analyzer test, I propose
pruning the output to resolve the new failures. Alternatively, I
could e
11 matches
Mail list logo
