https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992
--- Comment #9 from Kangjie Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> A simple google search (secure memset [glibc]) finds a few things:
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1381.pdf
>
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
A simple google search (secure memset [glibc]) finds a few things:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1381.pdf
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-12/msg00506.html
https://www.securecodi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992
--- Comment #7 from Kangjie Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> >More information can be found in our research paper:
> >http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~klu38/publications/unisan-ccs16.pdf
>
>
> You research paper is wrong and does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
>More information can be found in our research paper:
>http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~klu38/publications/unisan-ccs16.pdf
You research paper is wrong and does not consider C is an inherently insecure
language t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component|driver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77623
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77989
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77843
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992
Kangjie Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992
Kangjie Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77992
Bug ID: 77992
Summary: Failures to initialize padding bytes -- causing many
information leaks
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77987
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Seems simple enough to fix:
@@ -608,8 +608,9 @@
>
>>
void
- reset(_Up __p) noexcept
+ reset(_Up __ptr) noexcept
{
+ pointer __p = __ptr;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77991
Bug ID: 77991
Summary: ICE on x32 in plus_constant, at explow.c:87
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77978
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77987
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77990
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77978
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77959
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Oct 14 19:36:58 2016
New Revision: 241182
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241182&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/77959
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1) : For E
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77990
Bug ID: 77990
Summary: unique_ptr::unique_ptr(T*) imposes
CopyConstructible on the deleter
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65479
Bill Seurer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67182
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24693
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Prototype patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2016-10/msg00017.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66338
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 39814
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39814&action=edit
C source code
The attached C code, when compiled by gcc trunk dated 20161014 and
compiler f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77988
Bug ID: 77988
Summary: ICE on valid code at -Os and above on
x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_gimple failed
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77987
Bug ID: 77987
Summary: unique_ptr reset rejects cv-compatible pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77966
--- Comment #6 from Josh Poimboeuf ---
(In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #5)
> I checked the test case using "-fsanitize=unreachable" and that avoids the
> problem.
>
> Josh, should we set that whenever we enable objtool in the kernel?
In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68212
--- Comment #4 from Pat Haugen ---
Author: pthaugen
Date: Fri Oct 14 17:10:18 2016
New Revision: 241170
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241170&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/68212
* cfgloopmanip.c (duplicate_loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77978
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77965
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71912
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69698
Bug 69698 depends on bug 71912, which changed state.
Bug 71912 Summary: [6 regression] flexible array in struct in union rejected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71912
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71912
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Oct 14 15:37:54 2016
New Revision: 241168
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241168&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/71912 - [6/7 regression] flexible array in struct in union rejected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77964
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||http://marc.info/?t=1466867
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77973
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77966
--- Comment #5 from Arnd Bergmann ---
I checked the test case using "-fsanitize=unreachable" and that avoids the
problem.
Josh, should we set that whenever we enable objtool in the kernel?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77966
--- Comment #4 from Denis Vlasenko ---
This confuses object code sanity analysis tools which check that every function
ends "properly", i.e. with a return or jump (possibly padded with nops).
Can gcc get an option like -finsert-stop-insn-when-un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985
infinity0 at pwned dot gg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #39812|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985
--- Comment #8 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> So I just fixed the bug here, but yes, I don't know about the design
> decision. I suppose CWD was decided to be useless in case of an absolute
> pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985
--- Comment #7 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg ---
Created attachment 39812
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39812&action=edit
Emit DW_AT_comp_dir even if filename is an absolute path
Suggested patch attached, with a test case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77979
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
So I just fixed the bug here, but yes, I don't know about the design decision.
I suppose CWD was decided to be useless in case of an absolute path to the
file.
I don't think the debug info preserves -I pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77979
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 14 12:58:18 2016
New Revision: 241162
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241162&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-10-14 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/77979
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77983
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Use something different than memset is the other fix. There is also a thread in
glibc mailing list about a secure memset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985
--- Comment #5 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg ---
> Piggybacking a slightly unrelated issue: [..]
Upon further investigation it seems that, whilst the debug-prefix-maps do not
get applied to DW_AT_name filenames in the output of -dA, it does get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77973
--- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor ---
...and the assert is triggered when remapping the D.3442 part in
clause:
map(tofrom:*x.0 [len: D.3442])
of the target statement.
The variable indeed belongs to the top-level function bind, but there
is an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77973
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77984
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
-Weffc++ is basically broken and not useful for modern C++ code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65122
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65122
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Oct 14 12:03:47 2016
New Revision: 241158
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241158&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR65122 extended alignment support in allocators
PR libstdc++/6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77986
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77986
>
> Eric Botcazou changed:
>
>What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985
--- Comment #4 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg ---
Thanks for the quick response!
What is the reason for "absolute paths are supposed to omit it"? I'm reading
the DWARF spec and I can't find a mention of this anywhere.
Even if DW_AT_name is absol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77986
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
But also:
/* Add the name for the main input file now. We delayed this from
dwarf2out_init to avoid complications with PCH. */
add_name_attribute (comp_unit_die (), remap_debug_filename (filename
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77986
Bug ID: 77986
Summary: Re-building from the toplevel doesn't work when Ada
changes
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: build
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77968
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985
--- Comment #1 from infinity0 at pwned dot gg ---
Created attachment 39811
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39811&action=edit
Reproduce the bug; set CC to try it with different compilers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77968
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Fri Oct 14 10:28:27 2016
New Revision: 241154
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241154&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ada/77968
* gcc-interface/utils.c (create_var_decl)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77985
Bug ID: 77985
Summary: DW_AT_comp_dir is omitted when filename is absolute
and the file does not contain a specific typedef
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77984
Bug ID: 77984
Summary: Invalid warning on templated operator= with -Weffc++
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77944
Tim Shen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77944
--- Comment #1 from Tim Shen ---
Author: timshen
Date: Fri Oct 14 09:58:05 2016
New Revision: 241153
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241153&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/77944
* include/std/variant: include for __try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77962
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77980
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Note that "regression in gcc-7.0.0" would mean that gcc-6 was doing better,
which is not the case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77983
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77973
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77975
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
> Proved that loop 1 iterates 2 times using brute force.
so the question is why that doesn't work for the new form (and this is what we
should fix). Because
static gphi *
get_base_for (struct loop *loop,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63907
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 39809
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39809&action=edit
Use default member initializers.
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> Similar problem to PR 49894
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77983
Bug ID: 77983
Summary: [5/6/7 Regression] destructor call optimized out
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63907
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77982
Bug ID: 77982
Summary: deadlock in asan thread initialization/interception.
Product: gcc
Version: 6.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77966
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77979
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77980
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77979
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77976
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77975
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
80 matches
Mail list logo
