https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77432
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89788
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95581
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I posted a patch to avoid the ICE but it's not clear to me that it's the right
fix: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/547548.html
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The recent enhancement to -Wuninitialized (PR 10138) is overly strict: it
triggers for calls to functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95581
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95595
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95581
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |target
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
When the type of the access is obscured by a typedef (or macro, or, in C++, by
a template parameter), -Warray-bounds warnings like the one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
The priority is up to the GCC release managers but raising it won't make the
fix available before 10.2 (except on trunk). Regardless, I should have a patch
soon.
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
In a real-world scenario where the declaration of the called function was
removed from the call it took me a few minutes to understand what the
gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Known to work||10.1.0
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Fixed in GCC 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 88992, which changed state.
Bug 88992 Summary: missing -Warray-bounds indexing into a zero-length array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88992
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86889
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2018-08-09 00:00:00 |2020-6-10
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82581
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82608
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.0, 8.4.0, 9.3.0
Last reconfi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82608
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95353
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.0|
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 92939, which changed state.
Bug 92939 Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow on negative index from the end
of array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92939
What|Removed |Added
|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Known to work||11.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95635
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||86318
Component|c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94335
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to kal.conley from comment #6)
For reference, this was also submitted as pr95353 and is now fixed on trunk
(GCC 11).
The test case in comment #0 still triggers a warning.
: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Although strictly correct, GCC usually avoids warning for calls to memcpy that
write into multiple members at the same time, up to the size of the complete
object
||2020-06-13
Blocks||88443
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Keywords||diagnostic
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95684
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95625
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |c
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95673
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95725
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 86349, which changed state.
Bug 86349 Summary: diagnose string overflow for allocations of non-constant
sizes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86349
What|Removed |Added
||7.3.0, 8.2.0, 9.2.0
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Known to work||10.1.0
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95667
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69698
Bug 69698 depends on bug 92814, which changed state.
Bug 92814 Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow writing into a dynamically
allocated flexible array member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92814
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 92814, which changed state.
Bug 92814 Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow writing into a dynamically
allocated flexible array member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92814
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92814
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=95755
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95673
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Component|regression
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: ---
GCC folds comparisons of the results of calls to strlen with constant strings
and variable offsets but it
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC warns for the first call to strnlen in f() that may read past the end of
the unterminated array but it fails to warn for the
at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Component|tree-optimization |c++
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
This is the same case of the pretty printer not handling an expression as
pr95580, except this one is in the C++ front end (the code is duplicated almost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95768
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||83819
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-22
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
The first case is due to failing to handle POINTER_PLUS
|--- |INVALID
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
This instance of the warning looks familiar but I can't reproduce it with my
build of the k
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 95818, which changed state.
Bug 95818 Summary: wrong "used uninitialized" warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95818
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95818
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
No problem (and no inconvenience either).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95768
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor -
: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
In the test case below, -Wuninitialized only detects the first instances of
using an uninitialized struct. It does not detect passing it as an argument by
value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49754
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 49754, which changed state.
Bug 49754 Summary: Wuninitialized does not work with structs/unions/arrays
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49754
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89976
Bug 89976 depends on bug 49754, which changed state.
Bug 49754 Summary: Wuninitialized does not work with structs/unions/arrays
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49754
What|Removed |Added
-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
While testing the fix for pr95189 I noticed that the memcpy expansion into
copy-by-pieces is less than optimal for sequences containing embedded null
bytes. For example, in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
The following is a more straightforward test case that's also miscompiled to
return zero:
int main ()
{
char a[] = "\0abc";
return __builtin_memcmp (a, "\0\0\0\0", 4);
}
main:
.LFB0:
-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Similar to pr95886, the memcmp expansion into compare-by-pieces is less than
optimal for sequences containing embedded null bytes. For example, in the test
case below, the
|1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-24
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
I'm testing a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95886
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86568
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95940
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-29
Ever confirmed|0
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Since r11-1697 Go bootstrap fails due to the following warning turned error:
In static member function ‘static Expression* Type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95970
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
I think the warning is a false positive. The problem call is introduced by
early inlining and is eliminated by path isolation, but the -Wnonnull warning
code runs before that happens (by the post_ipa_warn pas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95970
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
On second thought, I think the warning might be correct. The function it's
issued for is a static member of class Type (I at first thought it was
virtual):
Expression*
Type::type_descriptor(Gogo* gogo, Type*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95970
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Yes, that's what it's saying. Unfortunately, the locations of null pointer
constants isn't available in the middle end so all we have left is the function
calls they're used in.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95984
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-29
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96007
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96008
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95984
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 96008 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96014
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-01
Ever confirmed|0
at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Let me fix up the analyzer test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70075
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chengcongxiu at huawei dot com
--- Commen
|RESOLVED
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
This is due to a bug in the initialization of multidimensional VLAs. Either
such initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95886
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96007
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jerryfromearth at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96014
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
G++ issues -Wnonnull when passing nullptr to ordinary variadic functions but
not for the same problem involving variadic lambdas or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96021
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|11.0|8.4.1
Known to fail|
at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I'm testing a fix.
|1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-01
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Fixed in my patch for pr95984.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
||2020-07-06
Keywords||diagnostic
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Let me confirm this bug report, in part because -w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95984
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96021
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95507
Bug 95507 depends on bug 96021, which changed state.
Bug 96021 Summary: missing -Wnonnull passing nullptr to a nonnull variadic
lambda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96021
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
Jon, is there anything else to do here or can we resolve this as fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96058
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
The stack trace in comment #0:
during GIMPLE pass: strlen
../../chrome/browser/ui/views/sharing/sharing_icon_view.cc: In member function
‘GetVectorIconBadge’:
../../chrome/browser/ui/views/sharing/sharing_ico
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC rejects conflicting attribute section on same declaration but fails to
detect the far more likely and difficult to debug problem where the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96126
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78666
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96126
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
See Also|
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=94527
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
See also pr94527 for a related request. I'm working
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |c++
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Specifying attribute access on an invalid function declaration involving a VLA
and an only subsequently declared bound parameter triggers an
dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Keywords||error-recovery,
||ice-on-invalid-code
Target Milestone|--- |10.2
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|11.0|
Resolution|---
,
||missed-optimization
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-13
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks||88443
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96188
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81809
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.0, 8.2.0, 9.2.0
--- Comment #4
|1
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-16
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org,
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Confirmed. Let me CC Marek who
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
301 - 400 of 8151 matches
Mail list logo
