https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115291
--- Comment #3 from Akihiko Odaki ---
You are right. Sorry for bothering and thanks for pointing out the issue in the
code (and even the relevant documentation!)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115291
Bug ID: 115291
Summary: armv8-a GCC emits float32x2_t loads from uninitialized
stack
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114494
--- Comment #6 from Akihiko Odaki ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #5)
> (In reply to Akihiko Odaki from comment #0)
> > if (hlen < sizeof(struct ip_header)) {
>
> Is this a typo for "if (hlen > sizeof(struct ip_header)) {"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114494
--- Comment #3 from Akihiko Odaki ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Note the minimized testcase seems to be a real issue. hlen can either be 1
> (the only value that works) or more than 1.
Below is the the error message for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114494
Bug ID: 114494
Summary: false-positive with -O2 -Wstringop-overflow=2
-fsanitize=address
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114217
--- Comment #13 from Akihiko Odaki ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> (In reply to Akihiko Odaki from comment #11)
> > So there are two constructs invoking UBs but ignored by UBSan: 1)
>
> That is an understatement. UBSan is a b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114217
--- Comment #11 from Akihiko Odaki ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> (In reply to Akihiko Odaki from comment #8)
> > It would certainly workaround the issue, but it's only dirtier and brings no
> > benefit except suppressed UBSan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114217
--- Comment #8 from Akihiko Odaki ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> GCC actually doesn't diagnose on mere pointer assignment, but what triggers
> the alignment check is
> &entry->offset
> even when the code later on just takes it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114217
--- Comment #6 from Akihiko Odaki ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/
> include/asm-generic/unaligned.h?h=v6.7
>
> is correct except it should not expose get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114217
--- Comment #5 from Akihiko Odaki ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/
> include/asm-generic/unaligned.h?h=v6.7
>
> is correct except it should not expose get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114217
--- Comment #3 from Akihiko Odaki ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >but also emits code to assert alignment.
>
>
> Yes because the code is broken still.
>
> The alignment is not about when the access happens but rather when t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114217
Bug ID: 114217
Summary: -fsanitize=alignment false positive with intended
unaligned struct member access
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109002
--- Comment #2 from Akihiko Odaki ---
Oops. Replacing i++ with i = !i removes the undefined behavior while the bug
still remains.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109002
Bug ID: 109002
Summary: -O1 -ftree-pre -ftree-partial-pre results in stall
value
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
14 matches
Mail list logo
