https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95094
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
See
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC successfully reports uninitialized reads from arrays involving variable
indices but it fails to find the same bugs when besides
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95136
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
As reported in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835906, compiling
loops that copy a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95140
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95140
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95140
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
No. GCC's manual recommends using either flexible array members or zero-length
arrays, and explicitly discourages abuses of arrays of length one (nothing is
said about any such exceptions for larger arrays):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10138
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Last reconfirmed|2008-03-30 20:45
|NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.0, 9.2.0
Keywords||diagnostic
Last reconfirmed
|FIXED
Blocks||24639
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
GCC has diagnosed this bug since at least version 4.1 so it's FIXED (and
unrelated to bug 10138).
Refer
|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Component|c++ |lto
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92815
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||11.0
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 94940, which changed state.
Bug 94940 Summary: [10 Regression] spurious -Warray-bounds for a zero length
array member of union since r10-4300-g49fb45c81f4ac068
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94940
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
:28:15 |2020-5-18
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Reconfirming with GCC 11.0.
Referenced Bugs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
[Bug 87403] [Meta-bug] Issues that suggest a new warning
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed|2007-03-13 16:12:46 |2020-5-18
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
Missing warning reconfirmed with GCC 11.
The last pass where the null pointer is still available is the CCP1 pass whose
output shows that it removes it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95177
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95177
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC issues -Wunused-but-set-parameter for function arguments used only as the
left operand of ordinary assignment expressions but it fails to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64639
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95217
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180
Bug 89180 depends on bug 95217, which changed state.
Bug 95217 Summary: missing -Wunused-but-set-parameter for compound assignment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95217
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44677
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2010-06-28 00:34:58 |2020-5-19
--- Comment #10 from Martin Seb
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
With yesterday's top of trunk I see the following test failures on
x86_64-linux:
$ grep FAIL gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.log |
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
With yesterday's top of trunk I see the following test failure on x86_64-linux:
spawn -ignore SIGHUP /ssd/test/build/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
|1
Host|powerpc64*-linux-gnu|powerpc64*-linux-gnu
||x86_64-linux
Last reconfirmed||2020-05-19
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed|2015-09-18 00:00:00 |2020-5-19
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Reconfirming that a warning for this and other similar cases (e.g., pr82520 and
pr69433) would be valuable.
Referenced Bugs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31279
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
I suspect this is too old to be relevant anymore. If it's still a problem can
you please update the r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41809
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41809
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.1.0, 9.2.0
Resolution|---
,
||7.5.0, 8.3.0, 9.2.0
Last reconfirmed|2017-08-25 00:00:00 |2020-5-19
Keywords||diagnostic
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44300
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46513
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
The problem with calls to K&R function definitions is isolated to the single
translation unit that defines those functions.
The problem with the same declarations (i.e., functions without a prototype) is
much bi
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
I suspect this is no longer a problem with current releases. They all build
with -O2 and -Werror.
00:00:00 |2020-5-19
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #15 from Martin Sebor ---
GCC 10 introduced attribute access to associate a pointer argument with a size
of the object it points to. Although the GCC 10 implementation of the
||5.5.0
Blocks||56456
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Keywords||diagnostic
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 53890, which changed state.
Bug 53890 Summary: bogus array bounds warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53890
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24786
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69433
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dank at kegel dot com
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94335
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.0
Blocks|
|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Can you please reduce that to a test case or a translation unit?
-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Declaring a local variable with attribute aligned is accepted. Declaring a
function argument with an overligned type is also accepted.
However, specifying attribute aligned
IRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
strlen calls in both functions below should be diagnosed because the
declaration with the attribute is l
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC warns when attribute used is specified on a function argument (e.g., as a
mistake instead of unused) but the warning is devoid of any useful information:
$ cat z.c
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Isn't the problem that c_getstr(arg2, &len2) sets len2 to 1 instead of 4 (i.e,
sizeof (x)) as the function comment sugges
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95276
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
There are some uninitialized local variables in the reduced test case but with
those made extern I was able to reproduce the warning. But unless the test
case was reduced too far or the reduction introduced b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95307
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning is due to a limitation of the compute_objsize() function. A small
"supported" test case (one that doesn't depend on a traili
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95353
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
I test my warning changes with binutils and --enable-targets=all. But that
apparently doesn't compile all source files, and I don't have a cross-build
setup in place (or the resources to do it). If someone w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95353
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.0
Summary|[10/11 Re
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC silently accepts calls to built-in functions declared without a prototype
as long as the arguments match the expected types (based on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95445
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||87403
Severity|normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC avoids issuing -Warray-bounds for indices whose range wraps around zero,
such as in g() below. Since unsigned wraparound is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95463
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||56456
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95461
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95461
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35587
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haoxintu at gmail dot com
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 95461, which changed state.
Bug 95461 Summary: GCC misses -Warray-bounds warning message
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95461
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65461
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-Warray-bounds warnings in |-Warray-bounds due to loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78678
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.0, 7.3.0, 8.2.0,
|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
The reason for this is the same as in pr95461 comment #1. Like -Warray-bounds,
for optimal results
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95461
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 95473 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC doesn't diagnose attempts to write into functions, even though those will
in all likelihood crash with a SIGBUS at runtime.
For example, in the following snippe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95485
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=90404
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95353
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95496
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||85741
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95490
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95353
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 95490 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 95490, which changed state.
Bug 95490 Summary: [10/11 Regression] writing 1 byte into a region of size 0
[-Wstringop-overflow=] since r10-5451-gef29b12cfbb4979a89b3cbadbf485a77c8fd8fce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95485
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Ah, yes, -Wpedantic does detect the invalid conversion. But few projects use
-Wpedantic (GCC itself doesn't) and enabling the warning in -Wall or -Wextra
would likely lead to lots of noise for code that conve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95496
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Meta-bug for -Wnonnull false positives and negatives.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95507
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-03
Ever confirmed|0
|1
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.0, 9.2.0
Blocks||95507
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #1 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78998
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.0, 7.3.0, 8.2.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78917
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.0, 7.3.0, 8.2.0,
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
In the following test case only the first two instances of passing a null
argument to a nonnull function are diagnosed. The third
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95507
Bug 95507 depends on bug 80936, which changed state.
Bug 80936 Summary: bcmp, bcopy, and bzero not declared nonnull
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80936
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80936
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||10.1.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79961
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |7.1.0
Known to fail|
|RESOLVED
Keywords||diagnostic
Last reconfirmed||2020-6-4
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Confirmed as a likely duplicate of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95353
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 10138, which changed state.
Bug 10138 Summary: warn for uninitialized arrays passed as const* arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10138
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70987
Bug 70987 depends on bug 10138, which changed state.
Bug 10138 Summary: warn for uninitialized arrays passed as const* arguments
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10138
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10138
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 95136, which changed state.
Bug 95136 Summary: missing -Wuninitialized on an array access with a variable
offset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95136
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95136
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The C test case below was reduced from gcc/var-tracking.c which triggers the
-Wnonnull (in C++) when the this pointer in member functions is considered
implicitly declared nonnull (or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
The reload_cse_simplify_operands() function allocates three arrays but resets
only two:
alternative_reject = XALLOCAVEC (int, recog_data.n_alternatives);
alternative_nregs = XALLOCAVEC (int, recog_data.n_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86568
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #2)
> alternative_order[0] is guaranteed to be set, because alternative_reject[i]
> <= alternative_reject[which_alternative] for i == which_alternative at
> least. We
||powerpc64*-linux
Target||powerpc64*-linux
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-06
Build||powerpc64*-linux
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95581
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
gimple_call_arg(stmt, 2) asserts for this GIMPLE_CALL statement:
vect__5.6_24 = __builtin_altivec_mask_for_load (vectp_a.5_8);
The call is made with just one argument but the type of the function is
actual
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Initializing a reference by dereferenced null pointer is not diagnosed but
should be because such a reference is invalid:
$ cat t.C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95589
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
201 - 300 of 8151 matches
Mail list logo
