[Bug c/106757] New: Incorrect "writing 1 byte into a region of size 0" warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106757 Bug ID: 106757 Summary: Incorrect "writing 1 byte into a region of size 0" warning Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/106039] New: Inconsistent error reporting for printf() when format string is a macro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106039 Bug ID: 106039 Summary: Inconsistent error reporting for printf() when format string is a macro Product: gcc Version: 12.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norm

[Bug c/106039] Inconsistent error reporting for printf() when format string is a macro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106039 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Leffler --- Created attachment 53177 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53177&action=edit Close to minimal source (4 format strings; 4 printf statements; some comments) Close to minimal source code

[Bug c/106039] Inconsistent error reporting for printf() when format string is a macro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106039 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Leffler --- Created attachment 53178 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53178&action=edit Output from gcc -v when compiling the test case

[Bug c/106039] Inconsistent error reporting for printf() when format string is a macro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106039 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Leffler --- Thank you for looking at this. In the second and subsequent errors, the line number of the macro is used in all three lines of the error report, whereas in the first, the second line of the messages is t

[Bug c/106039] Inconsistent error reporting for printf() when format string is a macro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106039 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Leffler --- I got an email from pinskia — thank you. I responded from an iPhone and got a message back about 'HTML attachments are not allowed'. I'm not sure if that got through. Anyway, what I said (tried to say)

[Bug c/111249] New: Aggressive loop optimization reports "iteration 2147483645 invokes undefined behavior"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111249 Bug ID: 111249 Summary: Aggressive loop optimization reports "iteration 2147483645 invokes undefined behavior" Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/111489] New: Incorrect "-Wmaybe-uninitialized" warning from GCC 13.2.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111489 Bug ID: 111489 Summary: Incorrect "-Wmaybe-uninitialized" warning from GCC 13.2.0 Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug c/111693] New: Online manual mentions -Wuse-after-free but does not document it further

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111693 Bug ID: 111693 Summary: Online manual mentions -Wuse-after-free but does not document it further Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: nor

[Bug c/111695] New: Spurious -Wuse-after-free when managing two arrays in parallel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111695 Bug ID: 111695 Summary: Spurious -Wuse-after-free when managing two arrays in parallel Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/111695] Spurious -Wuse-after-free when managing two arrays in parallel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111695 Jonathan Leffler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jonathan.leffler at gmail dot com -

[Bug c/111695] Spurious -Wuse-after-free when managing two arrays in parallel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111695 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Leffler --- Created attachment 56049 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56049&action=edit gcc-bug-3.c — Variation 3 (one array: does not generate -Wuse-after-free warnings)

[Bug c/111695] Spurious -Wuse-after-free when managing two arrays in parallel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111695 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Leffler --- Created attachment 56050 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56050&action=edit gcc-bug-4.c — Variation 4 (one array — does not generate -Wuse-after-free warnings)

[Bug c/111695] Spurious -Wuse-after-free when managing two arrays in parallel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111695 Jonathan Leffler changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #56047|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c/111693] Online manual mentions -Wuse-after-free but does not document it further

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111693 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Leffler --- The link https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-13.2.0/gcc/C_002b_002b-Dialect-Options.html#index-Wuse-after-free is to the "Options Controlling C++ Dialect". I was using the C compiler, not the C++ compiler

[Bug c/111693] Online manual mentions -Wuse-after-free but does not document it further

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111693 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Leffler --- The link https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-13.2.0/gcc/C_002b_002b-Dialect-Options.html#index-Wuse-after-free is to the "Options Controlling C++ Dialect". I was using the C compiler, not the C++ compiler

[Bug c/111693] Online manual mentions -Wuse-after-free but does not document it further

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111693 Jonathan Leffler changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVAL

[Bug tree-optimization/106757] [12/13 Regression] Incorrect "writing 1 byte into a region of size 0" on a vectorized loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106757 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Leffler --- GCC 14.1.0 seems to produce "error: writing 8 bytes into a region of size 5 [-Werror=stringop-overflow=]" for two extra occurrences of almost the same code in the original source file. It still generates

[Bug tree-optimization/106757] [12/13 Regression] Incorrect "writing 1 byte into a region of size 0" on a vectorized loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106757 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Leffler --- I beg your pardon — I thought I was using GCC 14.1.0 when I was actually using GCC 13.2.0. My previous comment applies to GCC 13.2.0, with the spec. $ /usr/gcc/v13.2.0/bin/gcc -v Using built-in specs. C

[Bug tree-optimization/106757] [12/13 Regression] Incorrect "writing 1 byte into a region of size 0" on a vectorized loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106757 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Leffler --- I can confirm that GCC 14.1.0 does not report the problems, after all. GCC 13.2.0 and GCC 12.1.0 and 12.2.0 do. Apologies for the confusion.