https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79257
--- Comment #15 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Feb 20 18:59:22 2018
New Revision: 257857
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257857&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/82123
PR tree-optimization/81592
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79257
--- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Feb 20 18:56:56 2018
New Revision: 257855
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257855&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/82123
PR tree-optimization/81592
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79257
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Feb 20 18:56:01 2018
New Revision: 257854
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257854&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/82123
PR tree-optimization/81592
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79257
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Feb 20 18:53:29 2018
New Revision: 257853
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257853&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/82123
PR tree-optimization/81592
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79257
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Feb 20 18:52:07 2018
New Revision: 257852
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257852&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/82123
PR tree-optimization/81592
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79257
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Tue Feb 20 18:49:46 2018
New Revision: 257851
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257851&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/82123
PR tree-optimization/81592
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79257
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79257
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Pierre Chapuis from comment #5)
That's a different bug, the same one as the root cause behind the false
positive in bug 78969, comment 4. The range information available outside the
VRP pass via
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79257
--- Comment #7 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Pierre Chapuis from comment #5)
> I think I can reproduce something similar *without* the sanitizer.
>
> Using GCC 7.1.1, with:
>
> #include
> int main () {
> int i; char obuf[3];
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79257
--- Comment #6 from Pierre Chapuis ---
(Note this is my first time reporting something to GCC, if you think I should
have opened a new ticked because it may be a slightly different bug please tell
me.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79257
Pierre Chapuis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||catwell-gcc at catwell dot info
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79257
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
One thing I noticed that suggests another possible (and, IMO, the ideal for
this specific case) solution: the warning goes away and GCC emits far better
code when the controlling expression of the loop is (i !
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79257
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79257
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The null pointer instrumentation added by the sanitizer causes GCC trouble.
We've seen it with the original implementation of the -Wnonnull warning, it
still causes null warnings out of builtin-ssa-sprintf.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79257
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
15 matches
Mail list logo
