https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93544
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #0)
[...snip...]
Thanks for filing this, I'm investigating the ICE.
> (BTW, w/o -O1 the analysis seems to be wrong in that double-free happens
> following "false" br
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93544
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #3)
[...]
> I'm not sure either now. I bet I've seen
>
> | 11 | bs = dx = !!ja ? qd () : 0;
> | |~~^~~
> | |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93547
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93546
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93544
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93543
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Here's a simpler patch; does it fix the build with clang?
gcc/analyzer/ChangeLog:
PR analyzer/93543
* engine.cc (pod_hash_traits::mark_empty):
Eliminate reinterpret_cast.
(pod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93511
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93457
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
Bug 93388 depends on bug 93511, which changed state.
Bug 93511 Summary: ICE in make_region_for_type analyzing zlib/gzwrite.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93511
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93543
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10 regression] bootstrap |[10 regression] bootstrap
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93355
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Missing diagnostic for |Missing diagnostic for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93543
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93392
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93392
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93405
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93288
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from David Malco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93375
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from David Malco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93405
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93288
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93375
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
Does the patch in comment #6 fix the remaining test failures for everyone?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93405
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93375
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93288
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93405
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Toon Moene from comment #3)
> The patch indeed solved the test case.
> Thanks !
Thanks for confirming it.
Any chance you could review the preparatory patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #151 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Peter Bisroev from comment #139)
[...]
> I am not sure how these selftests work yet but will take a look into them to
> see if we can reproduce a reliable minimal test case.
FWIW, I added th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93375
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93647
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93649
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93657
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
common.opt's has:
fdump-
Common Joined RejectNegative Var(common_deferred_options) Defer
-fdump- Dump various compiler internals to a file.
so how about:
fdump-analyzer
Common RejectNegative Var(flag_du
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93659
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93405
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93647
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93350
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93659
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93669
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93657
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93669
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93649
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93374
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #4)
> I tried out -fanalyzer with all the C code under gcc/testsuite.
>
> There are 35368 C source code files. 234 crashes so far.
>
> Here are the first ten:
Than
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93288
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93288
--- Comment #12 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to pmatos from comment #11)
> (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #10)
> > Should be fixed by the above commit.
>
> David, does this mean the analyzer has C++ support now or just that this
> s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93695
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I attempted to bootstrap GCC with the config/bootstrap-analyzer.mk from PR
93388 comment #0; it failed with various ICEs in Ada.
Quite a few of this form
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||93723
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #6)
> I ran into some ICEs in Ada with '--with-build-config=bootstrap-analyzer'
> with comment #0, which I've filed as 93723.
PR 93723, I meant to say (so it linkifies
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93692
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Good catch, thanks. Yes, this was a copy-and-paste issue.
How about this for the analyzer.opt description:
Dump analyzer-specific call graph information to a SRCFILE.callgraph.dot
file.
FWIW, invoke.tex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93774
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #0)
> Is it OK now to report analyzer ICEs when testing it w/ languages other than
> C?
Yes, though I'm likely to treat them as lower priority for now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93775
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93779
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93773
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for filing this. You attached the output, and it's clear from that
there's an issue. Are you able to attach the (unreduced) source code in
question ? Looks like awkgram.y and awk.h - do you still ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93777
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks. Both cases involve a casting from a NULL pointer type to a
REFERENCE_TYPE (the f90 case to a REAL_TYPE, the .C case to an INTEGER_TYPE).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93723
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Dávid Bolvanský from comment #2)
> Without LTO
>
> during IPA pass: analyzer
> common/entropy_common.c: In function ‘HUF_readStats’:
> common/entropy_common.c:196:37: internal compiler error: in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93723
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93775
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93779
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #3 from David Malcol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93779
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93774
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93778
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93777
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93457
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.bolvansky at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93798
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93692
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93777
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93778
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93774
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93779
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93773
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
I'm still working on reproducing this.
Looking at the stderr from attachment 47857, this seems reminiscent of
g:b4f3232d6979022a36b4055d7d3aaba693a39938 (PR c++/70105 and PR c/68473)
and also g:876217ae71c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93168
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Segher: did the above patch fix it for your terminal?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93863
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
What version of gcc was this with? This ought to have been fixed by
r10-6667-gf76a88ebf089871dcce215aa0cb1956ccc060895 (for PR analyzer/93388).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93032
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
I'm not convinced that the above patch is correct. What if one or two of the
fopen calls fail? Then the else branch of the "if" will be followed, and no
fclose will be called on the fp for the calls that su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93899
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93899
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93938
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93947
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93950
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93950
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93947
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93959
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93982
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93959
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2018-12-11
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88375
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm
||2018-12-14
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Confirmed. "string" vs "stting" has edit distance of 1, closer than &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43064
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Dec 19 15:08:21 2018
New Revision: 267272
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267272&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++: more location wrapper nodes (PR c++/43064, PR c++/43486)
This is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #15 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Dec 19 15:08:21 2018
New Revision: 267272
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267272&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++: more location wrapper nodes (PR c++/43064, PR c++/43486)
This is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87504
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Dec 19 15:15:42 2018
New Revision: 267273
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267273&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++: improvements to binary operator diagnostics (PR c++/87504)
The C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88375
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Wed Dec 19 15:22:27 2018
New Revision: 267276
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267276&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++: better locations for bogus initializations (PR c++/88375)
PR c++/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43064
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486
--- Comment #16 from David Malcolm ---
Should be greatly improved for C++ for gcc 9 by r267272.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87504
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
After r267273, g++ emits:
test.cc:10:30: error: invalid operands of types ‘const char [6]’ and ‘const
char’ to binary ‘operator&’
10 | return __builtin_strnlen (a&a[v0], n);
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88375
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87504
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #4)
> The patch broke Solaris/SPARC bootstrap:
Sorry about that. Does the patch posted here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg01433.html
help?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87504
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Thu Dec 20 14:18:48 2018
New Revision: 267299
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267299&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
-Wtautological-compare: fix comparison of macro expansions
gcc/c-famil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53917
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> David Malcolm recently greatly improved variable use location info for GCC
> 9; reminder to myself to check to see if that fixed this once I've finished
> buildin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88147
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
I've been trying to reproduce this, but failing - I tried with today's trunk,
and with a build from 2018-11-16.
Do you have a revision that is known to trigger the ICE?
||2019-01-03
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks. Confirmed; am investigating.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81980
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
With -m32 on ix86 we hit:
9282static tree
9283ix86_build_builtin_va_list (void)
9284{
9285 if (TARGET_64BIT)
9318 else
9319{
9320 /* For i386 we use plain pointer
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: jit
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
As noted in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg00227.html one of the
assertions in test-sum-of-squares.c has started
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88747
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
301 - 400 of 3389 matches
Mail list logo
