[Bug c/99323] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in add_hint, at diagnostic-show-locus.c:2234 since r8-379-gd1b5f5cc3cfd148e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99323 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug c/99323] [9/10 Regression] ICE in add_hint, at diagnostic-show-locus.c:2234 since r8-379-gd1b5f5cc3cfd148e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99323 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] ICE in |[9/10 Regression] ICE in

[Bug analyzer/95043] GCC 10 Analyzer and false positive on 'memcpy(dest, src, count);'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95043 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|UNCONFIRMED Ever confirmed|1

[Bug analyzer/96894] State explosion on gdb's fibheap.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96894 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Analyzer assumes pointer is |State explosion on gdb's

[Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090 --- Comment #11 from David Malcolm --- Re comment #10: I just tested unknown-fns-4.c and malloc-vs-local-1b.c 500 times each on a --target=i386-pc-solaris2.11 build using the script from comment #8 and the results were identical each time. So ho

[Bug analyzer/93355] Missing diagnostic for missing fclose in intl/localealias.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93355 --- Comment #8 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #4) > (a) It happens to successfully explore enough of the graph to find the leak, > but hits complexity limits at 1 program point: > > pr93355-localealias.c:263:41: w

[Bug analyzer/99390] New: [meta-bug] tracker bug for call summaries in -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99390 Bug ID: 99390 Summary: [meta-bug] tracker bug for call summaries in -fanalyzer Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: meta-bug Sever

[Bug analyzer/99391] New: Analyzer call summaries don't handle longjmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99391 Bug ID: 99391 Summary: Analyzer call summaries don't handle longjmp Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: analy

[Bug analyzer/99391] Analyzer call summaries don't handle longjmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99391 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- There may well be a similar issue with exception-handling.

[Bug analyzer/93355] Missing diagnostic for missing fclose in intl/localealias.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93355 --- Comment #9 from David Malcolm --- Going back to the summary from comment #4: (a) It happens to successfully explore enough of the graph to find the leak, but hits complexity limits at a program point (b) Without -fno-analyzer-feasibility, it

[Bug analyzer/98599] fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range with -Os -flto -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599 --- Comment #10 from David Malcolm --- I no longer believe the patch in comment #9 is correct. My latest analysis of this issue is: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/564070.html (I was hoping for a response from Honza on t

[Bug analyzer/96374] Analyzer erroneously rejects certain diagnostics due to path-feasibility being used on shortest path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96374 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/93355] Missing diagnostic for missing fclose in intl/localealias.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93355 --- Comment #11 from David Malcolm --- The above patch fixes the feasibility issue in (b) above, and the analyzer now successfully emits a diagnostic for the leak. The only remaining issue is (a) (see comment #9 above).

[Bug analyzer/93355] Analyzer -Wanalysis-too-complex on intl/localealias.c due to poor call summarization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93355 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Missing diagnostic for |Analyzer |missing fclo

[Bug analyzer/95758] Various issues when compiling glibc regex.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95758 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||99390 Summary|-Wanalyzer-use-

[Bug analyzer/96894] State explosion on gdb's fibheap.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96894 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||99390 --- Comment #4 from David Malcolm

[Bug analyzer/95188] analyzer-unsafe-call-within-signal-handler shows wrong statement for signal registration event

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95188 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||99390 --- Comment #13 from David Malcolm

[Bug analyzer/99614] diagnostic-manager.cc:85: possible missing copy constructor ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99614 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from David Malco

[Bug analyzer/99614] diagnostic-manager.cc:85: possible missing copy constructor ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99614 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/89863] [meta-bug] Issues in gcc that other static analyzers (cppcheck, clang-static-analyzer, PVS-studio) find that gcc misses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863 Bug 89863 depends on bug 99614, which changed state. Bug 99614 Summary: diagnostic-manager.cc:85: possible missing copy constructor ? https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99614 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug analyzer/99667] New: RFE: complain about uninitialized member variables in constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99667 Bug ID: 99667 Summary: RFE: complain about uninitialized member variables in constructor Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug analyzer/98247] RFE: detect Flexible Array Member misuse in analyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98247 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |analyzer Summary|gcc analyzer

[Bug analyzer/99669] New: RFE: detect division by zero in analyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99669 Bug ID: 99669 Summary: RFE: detect division by zero in analyzer Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: analyzer

[Bug analyzer/99260] analyzer does not track outcomes of realloc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99260 --- Comment #2 from David Malcolm --- In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0) > The analyzer currently has no knowledge of the behavior of "realloc" > (leading e.g. to bug 99193). > > For example, it currently fails to issue a warning for the

[Bug analyzer/99260] analyzer does not track outcomes of realloc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99260 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- Also, bug 81452 tracks warning on realloc(p, 0)

[Bug analyzer/99671] New: RFE: analyzer could complain about ptr derefs that occur before the ptr is checked

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99671 Bug ID: 99671 Summary: RFE: analyzer could complain about ptr derefs that occur before the ptr is checked Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severit

[Bug analyzer/96395] Generalize gcc.dg/analyzer tests to be run with both C and C++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96395 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||97110 Summary|gcc.dg/analyzer

[Bug analyzer/99716] -Wanalyzer-double-fclose when fclose is called inside a loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99716 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- Thanks. Looks very similar to bug 93695 - the analyzer "gets confused" in how it tracks allocations in a loop (albeit with a different kind of resource, and thus worth tracking as a separate bug).

[Bug analyzer/99714] warn about alloca/dealloc mismatches based on calls with same object in different functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99714 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- The C case in comment #0 doesn't look like what I think you meant to write, and the analyzer (correctly IMHO) complains about a leak: : In function 'init': :22:61: warning: leak of 'p' [CWE-401] [-Wanalyzer-

[Bug analyzer/99716] -Wanalyzer-double-fclose when fclose is called inside a loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99716 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-03-23 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug analyzer/99738] New: RFE: analyzer should complain about unchecked FILE *

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99738 Bug ID: 99738 Summary: RFE: analyzer should complain about unchecked FILE * Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug analyzer/99716] -Wanalyzer-double-fclose when fclose is called inside a loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99716 --- Comment #4 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2) > Also, I think we're missing a warning about "fp" possibly being NULL, for > the case where the fopen fails. I've filed this as bug 99738.

[Bug analyzer/95043] GCC 10 Analyzer and false positive on 'memcpy(dest, src, count);'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95043 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/99716] -Wanalyzer-double-fclose when fclose is called inside a loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99716 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug analyzer/99044] use-after-free false positive in loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99044 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/93695] Allocation and freeing memory for array members in loops is not handled properly by the analyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93695 --- Comment #4 from David Malcolm --- The above commit helps with related issues, but doesn't yet fix this bug. In particular, -Wanalyzer-too-complex shows that the analyzer generates an infinite chain of states for the loop, and eventually hits

[Bug analyzer/99771] New: Analyzer diagnostics should not say ""

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99771 Bug ID: 99771 Summary: Analyzer diagnostics should not say "" Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: analyzer

[Bug analyzer/99771] Analyzer diagnostics should not say ""

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99771 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug analyzer/99774] New: False positive from -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak in loop (qemu:libvhost-user.c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99774 Bug ID: 99774 Summary: False positive from -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak in loop (qemu:libvhost-user.c) Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug analyzer/99774] False positive from -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak in loop (qemu:libvhost-user.c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99774 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug analyzer/99854] gcc 11 snapshot 20210328: "lto1: fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range" when building Valgrind with LTO and -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99854 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/98599] fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range with -Os -flto -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jseward at acm dot org --- Comment #11 f

[Bug analyzer/99860] New: RFE: analyzer does not respect "restrict"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99860 Bug ID: 99860 Summary: RFE: analyzer does not respect "restrict" Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: analyzer

[Bug analyzer/99771] Analyzer diagnostics should not say ""

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99771 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- The above patch fixes some of the occurrences of the bug (due to (b)), but not those due to (a), so keeping this bug open.

[Bug analyzer/99886] New: Infinite loop in -fanalyzer seen on gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-1.c with -fanalyzer-verbosity=0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99886 Bug ID: 99886 Summary: Infinite loop in -fanalyzer seen on gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-1.c with -fanalyzer-verbosity=0 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/99886] Delay loop in -fanalyzer seen on gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-1.c with -fanalyzer-verbosity=0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99886 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/99906] [11 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in maybe_reconstruct_from_def_stmt with -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99906 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever confirmed|0

[Bug analyzer/99906] [11 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in maybe_reconstruct_from_def_stmt with -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99906 --- Comment #2 from David Malcolm --- Testing a fix.

[Bug analyzer/99886] Delay loop in -fanalyzer seen on gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-1.c with -fanalyzer-verbosity=0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99886 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug analyzer/99906] [11 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in maybe_reconstruct_from_def_stmt with -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99906 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/99860] RFE: analyzer does not respect "restrict"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99860 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- Notes on "restrict": https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/restrict

[Bug analyzer/99042] Another false -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak on code path involving unknown function call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99042 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug analyzer/99774] False positive from -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak in loop (qemu:libvhost-user.c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99774 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/100011] [11 Regression] ICE in analyzer when generating path for -Wanalyzer-unsafe-call-within-signal-handler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100011 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-04-10 Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug c/100020] New: RFE: Wmisleading-indentation (or similar warning) for certain missing semicolons?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100020 Bug ID: 100020 Summary: RFE: Wmisleading-indentation (or similar warning) for certain missing semicolons? Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywor

[Bug analyzer/98599] [11 Regression] fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range with -Os -flto -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|fatal error: Cgraph edge|[11 Regression] fatal

[Bug analyzer/99212] [11 Regression] gcc.dg/analyzer/data-model-1.c line 971

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P5 --- Comment #10 from David Malcolm -

[Bug analyzer/100011] [11 Regression] ICE in analyzer when generating path for -Wanalyzer-unsafe-call-within-signal-handler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100011 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/99212] [11 Regression] gcc.dg/analyzer/data-model-1.c line 971

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212 --- Comment #11 from David Malcolm --- I experimented with fixing this properly so that it works for all targets, but the fix involves adding a new region subclass to handle bitfields, and so feels far too risky for GCC 11. Hence this should be

[Bug analyzer/98599] [11 Regression] fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range with -Os -flto -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|WAITING

[Bug analyzer/100042] ICE in gimple_call_set_fndecl with -Os -fsanitize=undefined -flto -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100042 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- I'm not able to reproduce this, but I just committed a fix for PR 98599; does that fix this for you also?

[Bug analyzer/98599] [11 Regression] fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range with -Os -flto -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599 --- Comment #17 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #15) Thanks. [...] > So apparenlty analyzer is first pass that does use UIDs of statements at > WPA time. I wonder if there should be a debug flag that trashes all UI

[Bug jit/100096] libgccjit.so.0: Cannot write-enable text segment: Permission denied on NetBSD 9.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100096 --- Comment #8 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to Sascha Wilde from comment #6) > However, please note that > "Cannot write-enable text segment: Permission denied" > is the more pressing problem, as it prevents libgccjit to be used > on NetBSD

[Bug jit/100096] libgccjit.so.0: Cannot write-enable text segment: Permission denied on NetBSD 9.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100096 --- Comment #16 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to Sascha Wilde from comment #10) > (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #8) > > It would be good to know exactly where that error message is being emitted. > > > > If you add: > > gcc_jit_c

[Bug analyzer/100116] New: analyzer event messages for conditionals have the sense of the gimple IR rather than the source

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100116 Bug ID: 100116 Summary: analyzer event messages for conditionals have the sense of the gimple IR rather than the source Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/100121] New: RFE: plugin support for -Wformat via __attribute__((format()))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100121 Bug ID: 100121 Summary: RFE: plugin support for -Wformat via __attribute__((format())) Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug jit/100207] Error in build()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207 --- Comment #4 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3) > (In reply to sujay1844 from comment #2) > > So is the AUR package having a bug?? > > What's AUR? Can you investigate what sets the -Wformat-security ? Presumabl

[Bug jit/100207] -Werror=format-security error in AUR build of libgccjit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Error in build()|-Werror=format-security

[Bug jit/100207] -Werror=format-security error in AUR build of libgccjit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug jit/100207] -Werror=format-security error in AUR build of libgccjit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207 --- Comment #12 from David Malcolm --- Is that the default /etc/makepkg.conf, or did you hand-edit it? (i.e is this something that all AUR users are going to run into, or just you?) Clearly the "-Werror=format-security" is not compatible with

[Bug jit/100207] -Werror=format-security error in AUR build of libgccjit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207 --- Comment #14 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to sujay1844 from comment #13) > (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #12) > > Is that the default /etc/makepkg.conf, or did you hand-edit it? (i.e is > > this something that all AUR users are

[Bug analyzer/100244] [11/12 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in describe_state_change)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100244 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/100244] [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in describe_state_change)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100244 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[11/12 Regression] ICE: |[11 Regression] ICE:

[Bug testsuite/97168] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/plugin/diagnostic-test-expressions-1.c, diagnostic-test-paths-2.c, location-overflow-test-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97168 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #2) [...] > (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #0) > > FAIL: gcc.dg/plugin/diagnostic-test-expressions-1.c > > -fplugin=./diagnostic_plugin_test_tree_expression_r

[Bug testsuite/97168] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/plugin/diagnostic-test-expressions-1.c, diagnostic-test-paths-2.c, location-overflow-test-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97168 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED Ever confirmed|1

[Bug testsuite/97168] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/plugin/diagnostic-test-expressions-1.c, diagnostic-test-paths-2.c, location-overflow-test-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97168 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/95007] RFE: -fanalyzer should complain about writes to string literals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95007 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/97258] -fanalyze fails to analyze static callbacks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97258 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/97394] Incorrect analyzer output for setjmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97394 --- Comment #5 from David Malcolm --- Created attachment 49366 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49366&action=edit [PATCH] analyzer: don't use in tests [PR97394] Thanks for filing this bug. Does this patch fix the testsuite

[Bug tree-optimization/97424] Warn on invalid shift amount after inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97424 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug analyzer/97394] Incorrect analyzer output for setjmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97394 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/93388] ensure -fanalyzer works with our C code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388 Bug 93388 depends on bug 93723, which changed state. Bug 93723 Summary: ICEs building ada with -fanalyzer https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93723 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug analyzer/93723] ICEs building ada with -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93723 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug analyzer/93388] ensure -fanalyzer works with our C code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388 --- Comment #24 from David Malcolm --- As noted in https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/556203.html I was able to bootstrap using the method described in comment #0, albeit taking 7 hours (compared to the 45 minutes it normally

[Bug analyzer/97489] [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in ana::supergraph::get_node_for_function_entry(function*) const) since r10-5950-g757bf1dff5e8cee3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97489 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from David Malco

[Bug middle-end/94169] warn for modifying getenv() result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94169 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug analyzer/97514] [11 Regression] ICE in add_function_entry, at analyzer/engine.cc:1958

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97514 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-10-21 Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug analyzer/97489] [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in ana::supergraph::get_node_for_function_entry(function*) const) since r10-5950-g757bf1dff5e8cee3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97489 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug analyzer/97514] [11 Regression] ICE in add_function_entry, at analyzer/engine.cc:1958

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97514 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/97568] -fanalyzer assumes that an extern const pointer is NULL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97568 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug analyzer/96608] Build failure due to cast to type long on MinGW

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96608 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/97568] -fanalyzer assumes that an extern const pointer is NULL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97568 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/97608] -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak false positive when returning p+1 instead of p

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97608 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/97411] [11 regression] bogus message from gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c after r11-3840

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97411 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- Looks like a dup of PR 97090 (though that one is on arm).

[Bug analyzer/97621] [11 regression] bogus message in gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c after r11-4434

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97621 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090 --- Comment #5 from David Malcolm --- PR 97621 reports it as starting on powerpc64*-linux-gnu with r11-4434, which was a fix for non-determinism in -fanalyzer, so perhaps this is a flaky test that the non-determinism fixes have made fail more rel

[Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090 --- Comment #6 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #1) > I see random results from one run to another, so it's likely that something > is not initialized correctly. I think it's due to places in -fanalyzer that iterat

[Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090 --- Comment #7 from David Malcolm --- *** Bug 97411 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug analyzer/97411] [11 regression] bogus message from gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c after r11-3840

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97411 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >