https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81824
--- Comment #17 from Martin Sebor ---
Making -Wattribute-alias a synonym for -Wattribute-alias=1 makes sense. I'll
take care of it.
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The definition of the alias fa() below is diagnosed with -Wall but the
definition of ga() is not, despite the fact that the former is safe (and
||2019-01-02
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The grammar implies the original form of the alias-declaration should be
accepted with standard C++ attributes
||2019-01-02
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Confirmed. Clang rejects the code with
$ clang -S --pedantic-errors pr88642.c
pr88642.c:4:15: error: too many
at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88638
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
||2019-01-02
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Confirmed. Let me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84478
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
If this is a new regression please open a new bug for it. It's probably a
fallout from r267503 or one of the other related changes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84478
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84478
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target|
|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed||2019-01-03
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
This looks similar to bug 88659 but I&#
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
-Wtype-limits is documented to
Warn if a comparison is always true or always false due to the limited
range of the data type
||2019-01-03
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org,
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|No -Wtype-limits warning|[7/8/9 Regression] No
|when using templates|-Wtype
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Duplicate of bug 82521.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 82521 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82521
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jure.slak at ijs dot si
--- Comment #2 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88659
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Jan 4 03:13:33 2019
New Revision: 267569
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267569&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88659 - ICE in maybe_warn_nonstring_arg
gcc/ChangeLo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88659
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88687
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The -Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch warning below should probably only be issued
if -Wimplicit-function-declaration is disabled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88363
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87964
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Version|8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88638
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88363
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88363
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Jan 4 22:48:45 2019
New Revision: 267583
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267583&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/88363 - alloc_align attribute doesn't accept enumerated arguments
gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88700
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88546
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Sat Jan 5 00:57:30 2019
New Revision: 267591
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267591&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/88546 - Copy attribute unusable for weakrefs
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88546
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88430
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81871
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88716
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81980
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
||2019-01-08
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.1.3, 4.3.5, 4.4.7, 4.8.5,
||4.9.4, 5.4.0, 6.4.0
at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Agreed. Thanks for the test case. I'm working on a patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning is triggered by the excessive size argument in the strncpy call.
The excessive size makes the call invalid regardless of the values of the two
pointer arguments.
This happens both with the reduce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
That said, the size range in the warning output is wrong. It should be just
4294967295. The warning should probably also be changed to -Wstringop-overflow
which diagnoses both out-of-bounds writes and reads.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88766
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
As discussed in bug 88766 comment #4, GCC treats some statement expressions as
lvalues even though their last statement is an rvalue. As noted in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88766
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
In the test case below the assignment suppression logic where we look for the
next statement to see if it assigns a nul to the destination is never entered,
resulting in a false positive. I don&#
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This is a meta-bug to track false positives and negatives in the
-Wstringop-overflow warning, or other improvements to the implementation of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88781
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81452
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
There is -Walloc-zero. If we want a separate knob for just it then maybe
-Wrealloc-zero.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, that's exactly right.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
It might be possible for some. I'm not sure how successful it would be for
others. The thread_jumps pass runs four times and moving the warn_restrict
pass before its first instance results in dozens of regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
I understand what jump threading does but I don't know enough about how it
works to have a clear idea how viable marking up the created statements would
be. To avoid false negatives it would need to make it
||2019-01-11
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||8.2.0, 9.0
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Confirmed. The warning is issued by the restrict
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88718
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2019-01-11
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||5.4.0, 6.3.0, 7.3.0, 8.2.0
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The discussion of the background on pr88793
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480664) made me realize that
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
In addition to bug 88813, prompted by the discussion of the background on
pr88793 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480664), another
optimization opportunity is
||2019-01-12
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Looks like David's made himself the assignee so setting the status to Assigned.
||2019-01-12
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||7.3.0, 8.2.0, 9.0
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Confirmed.
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2019-01-12
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|c++ |libstdc++
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88813
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
To be safe, even though %s requires that the argument be a nul-terminated
string, the snprintf optimization would need to be predicated on knowing that
it, in fact, is one (to avoid buffer overflow if snprintf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88738
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I can see how applying the attribute to every standard library function, even
const, might be excessive, but I wonder if it would make sense for the majority
of them, or at least for most equality and relation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88817
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88737
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Wouldn't that break e.g. programs that
> free (a);
> return (uintptr_t) a % 16;
> or similar (i.e. inspect the bits of the pointer rather than what it points
>
||2019-01-12
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
I agree. defines C library names in both namespace std and the
global namespace but C++ library names only in
||2019-01-13
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Confirmed, although I'd be more inclined to invest energy into including
-Wstrict-prototypes in -Wall or -W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88700
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2019-01-13
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Confirmed based on the latest test results for both targets:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-01
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88662
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80354
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #10)
> Many other warnings are supressed with (void), why is this one so special?
Not too many warnings can be suppressed by casts. Those that can must be at
leas
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The number of iterations of the loop below is bounded by the size of i so the
value of n on loop exit is in the range [0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88638
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Mon Jan 14 18:44:00 2019
New Revision: 267922
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267922&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/88638 - FAIL: fsf-nsstring-format-1.s on darwin
gcc/c-family/Ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88638
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82456
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81437
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||8.2.0, 9.0
--- Comment #2 from Martin Seb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86552
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 86552, which changed state.
Bug 86552 Summary: missing warning for reading past the end of non-string arrays
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86552
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88800
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Component|c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85949
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Unfortunately, not easily. By the time attribute arguments are being validated
their location information has been stripped. Keeping it around is possible
but will likely involve some intrusive changes that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85949
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
There are two kinds of warnings for printf-type functions: -Wformat implemented
in the front-ends, and -Wformat-overflow/truncation implemented in the
middle-end. The former detects mostly just type-based err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86308
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Looks like I dropped the ball on this. Let me see if I can still get it done
for GCC 9.
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2019-01-16
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Version|8.0 |9.0
Summary|ice in get_constant, at |[9 Regression] ice in
||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=86125
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The patch posted for bug 86125 fixes this ICE and results in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86308
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Updated patch for GCC 9:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg00969.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86125
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88780
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||7.3.0
Summary|bogus -Wstringop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88781
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|9.0 |8.0
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
||2019-01-17
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=43407
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88800
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jan 17 16:33:55 2019
New Revision: 268037
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268037&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88800 - Spurious -Werror=array-bounds for non-taken b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88800
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] Spurious |[8 Regression] Spurious
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80537
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 80537, which changed state.
Bug 80537 Summary: missing -Wformat-overflow on POSIX %C conversion
specification
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80537
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77293
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2019-01-17
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|c++ |c
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88895
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
|P3
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.9.4, 5.2.0, 6.3.0
Known to fail||5.1.0
--- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor ---
This seems fixed (as per comment 9
at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88273
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jan 17 22:52:47 2019
New Revision: 268048
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268048&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/88273 - [8/9 Regression] warning: 'memcpy' offset [-527, -5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88273
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9 Regression] warning: |[8 Regression] warning:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88895
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
The C++ solution to this kind of problem is to use template specialization.
It's a been a while since I wrote any real C++ code but this seems to work and
avoids the warnings
class PackRule
{
template
s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88895
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
I agree that GCC would do a better by running -Wshift-count-overflow later (but
that carries a risk of false positives as well). That's also why I
acknowledged the report.
Both solutions appear to be optimiz
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
None of the obviously invalid calls to memcpy in the test case below is
diagnosed on common targets that fold memcpy calls with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79220
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
1101 - 1200 of 8151 matches
Mail list logo
