https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #48 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #47)
> On the #c42 testcase the false positive warning is gone with
> r12-3529-g70ee703c479081ac2ea67eb67041551216e66783
> which has been backported in
> r11-9062-g17e4e6e33d13e0cf09c76cba06c5fc20deab8bb4 to 11.x.
> Is there any problem left with sanitizers vs. coroutines?
I suppose probably (realistically), but nothing reported at this time
I have the two test cases in my regular testing tree (on Darwin18) where:
Schedule of variations:
unix/-fsanitize=undefined,address
PASS: g++.dg/coroutines/pr95137-1.C (test for excess errors)
PASS: g++.dg/coroutines/pr95137-2.C (test for excess errors)
PASS: g++.dg/coroutines/pr95137-2.C execution test
> Even if yes, it would be better to track that in separate PRs, because this
> one got overly long and mixes many different issues.
concur, this has become a long thread.
closing as fixed - I have a backport for 10.x in my queue.
