https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 79220, which changed state.
Bug 79220 Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow= on a memcpy overflow with a
small power-of-2 size
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79220
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88921
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88293
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88954
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Let me work on this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88954
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
My question is about the change you are proposing. How do you expect g() to be
called if the test case from comment #0 is modified for example as follows:
void f_plt(void);
void f_noplt(void) __attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88973
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||84774
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88973
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 45497
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45497&action=edit
canonicalize_pathname function extracted from the translation unit.
Attached is the canonicalize_pathname functi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88973
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84774
Bug 84774 depends on bug 88973, which changed state.
Bug 88973 Summary: [8/9 Regression] New -Wrestrict warning since r268048
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88973
What|Removed |Added
--
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC diagnoses the undefined behavior in function f() in the test case below but
fails to diagnose the same bug in g() or h().
However
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88991
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also|
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Also while adding a test for the fix for bug 88956 I noticed that GCC doesn't
diagnose indexing into zero-length arrays. The out-of-b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88991
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||88443
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #2 from Martin Seb
||2019-01-23
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||8.2.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||9.0
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
For some background into the source of the limit see the discussion below:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01772.html
The warning is based on the C limit in the discussion and the Glibc
bug/lim
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC folds a small subset of calls to C strcpy to the POSIX stpcpy when doing so
is profitable, such as in function f below
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89043
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89035
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2019-01-24
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Component|preprocessor|c++
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89043
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The CHANGE HISTORY section for stpcpy says the function was first released in
Issue 1 and derived from Issue 1 of the SVID:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/stpcpy.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86308
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jan 24 21:06:01 2019
New Revision: 268251
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268251&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/86125 - missing -Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch on a mismatched return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jan 24 21:06:01 2019
New Revision: 268251
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268251&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/86125 - missing -Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch on a mismatched return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86125
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jan 24 21:06:01 2019
New Revision: 268251
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268251&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/86125 - missing -Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch on a mismatched return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86308
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] ICE in |[7/8 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89043
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Ah, makes sense. I briefly wondered how stpcpy could have been "updated for
alignment with the ISO/IEC 9899:1999 standard." That's the trade-off of a 4k
monitor: it fits tons of stuff on the screen but every
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86125
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88956
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Making a silly mistake and using the wrong macro such as SIZE_MAX instead of
MAX_SIZE as the array size when defining a global object seems to cause as to
hang presumably while
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89052
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Clang seems to use SIZE_MAX / 8 as the maximum object size and gives an error
for any object whose size exceeds that. But it doesn't seem to doesn't track
total object sizes and crashes in LLVM as it runs out
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
While experimenting with the test case for pr89052 I came across the following
error issued by the G++ front-end for the
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
While adding tests for a fix for bug 87996 I noticed that the location in
diagnostic messages for excessive array size expressions involving predefined
constants like __SIZE_MAX__ (or
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to fail||4.1.3, 4.3.5, 4.4.7, 4.8.5,
||4.9.4, 5.4.0, 6.4.0, 7.3.0,
||8.2.0, 9.0
Severity|minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89070
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||8.2.0, 9.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to fail||6.4.0, 7.3.0
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning has disappeared sometime in
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #15 from Martin Sebor ---
Recent versions of G++ diagnose shifting into the sign bit (and reject it in
constexpr contexts) so this looks resolved:
warning: result of ‘(2 << 31)’ re
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Severity|enhancement |normal
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
This was a regression introduced by r208183 and apparently fixed by r241858:
2016-11-04 Paolo Carlini
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67980
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||scovich at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80383
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||7.3.0, 8.2.0, 9.0
--- Comment #3 from Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84608
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.5.3, 7.1.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Summary|missing diagnostic on |[7/8/9 Regression] missing
|questionable array sizes|diagnostic on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89106
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87996
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88956
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed Jan 30 03:04:14 2019
New Revision: 268378
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268378&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/88956 - ICE: Floating point exception on a memcpy from
a zer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88956
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89106
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Is your concern with mentioning it that it describes the implementation?
Let's see how that works in the full text:
A cast to union type looks similar to other casts, except that the type
specified is a un
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
In a program that refers to a macro like FLT_MAX or FLT_MIN with but
not included GCC issues an error (as it should) but suggests
replacing the macros with
at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 45570
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45570&action=edit
Proposed fix.
Okay, I'm fine with referring to a temporary instead. I see what you mean
about the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60170
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC issues -Wtype-limits warnings for relational expressions that either cannot
be true or cannot be false due to the limits of the type of one of their
operands. This seems to work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89126
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89126
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
In ILP32 it doesn't work for long either.
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC appears to fold certain non-constant relational expressions into constants
very early when it determines their value based on the limited range of the
non-constant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89127
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
See Also|
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This meta bug tracks -Wtype-limits false negatives and false positives.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89129
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
||2019-01-31
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Should this be resolved as fixed then?
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The newly introduced -Wabsolute-value warning (also by -Wextra) partly
duplicates the functionality of the -Wconversion warning (disabled
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The -Wcast-align warning is documented to
Warn whenever a pointer is cast such that the required alignment of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89132
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89106
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Thu Jan 31 02:33:58 2019
New Revision: 268411
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268411&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR other/89106 - cast-to-union documentation incorrect w.r.t. lvalueness
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89106
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Assigning the address of an overaligned member of a struct or union that is of
an otherwise less aligned type to a pointer to a type with
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
While looking into bug 89127 I noticed that while GCC 8 and prior fold the
comparison to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89143
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89127
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I see what you mean. It might perhaps be useful to mention the bigint rule of
thumb in the manual. At the same time, the warning still doesn't work even
under this restricted interpretation. For example, in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2019-02-01
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
I can confirm this, though it's a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
||2019-02-01
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||4.5.3, 4.8.5, 4.9.4, 5.4.0,
||6.4.0, 7.3.0, 8.2.0, 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89126
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The problem is in shorten_compare() in c-common.c which deals with these cases.
The comment above the block that handles this has this to say just above the
conditional that guards the code. The conditional
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89134
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
I think this can be considered a duplicate of bug 86368, even though that bug
talks specifically about C++ 17 and this one about all C++ attributes.
*** This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86368
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2019-02-02
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks||85741
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14030
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|7.0 |7.3.0, 8.2.0, 9.0
--- Comment #6 from Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16093
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16804
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44648
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.2.0
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44648
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Sun Feb 3 21:48:27 2019
New Revision: 268503
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268503&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/44648 - missing -Wunused warning on a const variable in if statemen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44648
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46224
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60212
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This bug tracks -Wunused false negatives and positives.
||2019-02-03
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Version|unknown |4.7.4
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Confirmed.
Both Clang and with -O also GCC 4.7 and later
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||9.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Known to fail||5.4.0, 6.3.0, 7.3.0, 8.2.0
--- Comment #13
||2019-02-03
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,
||9.0
--- Comment #2 from
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I see the warning with all supported GCC releases so resolving as fixed:
pr67759.c: In function ‘should_warn’:
pr67759.c:18:6: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘get
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||7.3.0, 8.2.0, 9.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to fail||6.4.0
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning has been issued since GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69661
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Sun Feb 3 22:47:41 2019
New Revision: 268504
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268504&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/69661 - missing -Wsequence-point warning
gcc/testsuite.ChangeLog:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70125
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |middle-end
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70181
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|6.0 |6.3.0, 7.3.0, 8.2.0, 9.0
--- Comment #3 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70180
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.1.3, 4.3.5, 4.4.7, 4.8.5,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70180
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
With -Wextra, Clang warns on one of the cases:
70180.cc:3:22: warning: performing pointer arithmetic on a null pointer has
undefined behavior if the offset is nonzero [-Wnull-pointer-arithmetic]
void *p = (i
||2019-02-03
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail||7.3.0, 8.2.0, 9.0
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
No change in GCC 9 so confirmed:
$ cat
||2019-02-03
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|Missing -Waddress warning |Missing -Waddress warning
||due to -Wno-system-headers
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21678
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||skvadrik at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
1201 - 1300 of 8151 matches
Mail list logo
