https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11 Regression] Maybe a |[11 Regression] spurious
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96245
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Please include the information requested at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs (the link
is printed in the GCC output for
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Severity|normal |trivial
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Fixed in r11-2229.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95886
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95189
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] memcmp |[10 Regression] memcmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96245
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Only (1) would be true. Like the optimization, the warning wouldn't trigger in
code that didn't follow the pattern because there's no way to tell if that's
deliberate or a bug.
I'd expect the warning to be u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96259
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94655
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||freddy77 at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96247
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95988
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94655
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 95988, which changed state.
Bug 95988 Summary: [10/11 Regression] Bogus -Warray-bounds/-Wstringop-overflow
warning with loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95988
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks for the test case. In it, the no-warning bit set on the conditional
expression to avoid the warning is cleared before the expression reaches the
warning code. The culprit seems to be the cp_fold_conv
dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Testing a simple enhancement teaching gimple-array-bounds.cc how to detect this
case.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 84051, which changed state.
Bug 84051 Summary: [7/8/9 Regression] missing -Warray-bounds on an
out-of-bounds access via an array pointer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84051
What|Removed
|1
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-22
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I support including more diagnostics in -Wall and -Werror
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61579
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96284
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #3)
> I support including more diagnostics in -Wall and -Werror
I meant "-Wall and -Wextra."
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
VLA type mentioned in diagnostics involve nonsensical bounds. The type should
instead be 'char[m][n]'
$ cat z.c && gcc -O2 -S -Wall z.c
#if 1
void f (voi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84079
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
||struct
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-23
CC
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-23
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
Confirmed with today's top of trunk and GCC 10.2.
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Of the two functions below with uninitialized reads only the first bug is
detected. The second one is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96300
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Blocks|
at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-25
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Keywords||diagnostic
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96310
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95507
Bug 95507 depends on bug 96310, which changed state.
Bug 96310 Summary: Ignoring Wnonnull via pragma gcc diagnostics still produces
a unwanted note
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96310
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 84079, which changed state.
Bug 84079 Summary: missing -Warray-bounds taking the address of a
multidimensional array element
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84079
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84079
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC treats trailing arrays of zero length as flexible array members provided
they are a) single-dimensional and b) not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50584
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96367
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96310
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
I've been thinking about that too but not really coming up with anything given
the current design. One idea is to change warning() to return a unique "token"
and have inform() take it as an argument and do it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89772
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following test case triggers a false positive -Wstringop-overflow:
$ cat z.c && gc
at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Blocks||88443
Keywords||diagnostic
Referenced Bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96384
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
It looks like a false positive caused by the weirdo signed vs unsigned
conversions between wide_int and offset_int. It happens in this piece of code
in compute_objsize:
offset_int orng[2];
tree o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
--- Comment #15 from Martin Sebor ---
The patch I posted two weeks ago is only now being reviewed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95507
Bug 95507 depends on bug 96003, which changed state.
Bug 96003 Summary: [11 Regression] spurious -Wnonnull calling a member on the
result of static_cast
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96003
--- Comment #18 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #8)
> Also, the "'this' pointer null" error wording is not very clear. Should it
> be "'this' pointer is null"? Or "'this' pointer may be null"?
I agree that the
|middle-end
Keywords||diagnostic
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|erroneous stringop-overflow |erroneous
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96406
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
10.2 is the latest released version. GCC 11 is the development version. If
you normally don't build it from source they I suspect you won't have
convenient access to it.
Introducing a local variable and usi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95353
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bruce.fleming at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96406
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||diagnostic,
||missed-optimization
Component|other |tree-optimization
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|False positive |False positive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96468
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96468
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
--- Comment #4 from Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96468
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |c
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
O
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The test case below demonstrates that the effect of the malloc function
attribute (as well as others) on subsequent optimizations is
: ipa
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Similar to pr96502, the test case below shows that the effect of attribute
alloc_size on warnings is also lost after inlining. I
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Prompted by the discussion at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-August/551526.html, the
following test case shows that
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Prompted by the discussion at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-August/551526.html, the
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The one-byte buffer overflow turns the bounded loop in the test case below into
an infinite one. GCC does issue a warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96509
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Summary|out of boun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96516
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96516
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Thank you for taking the time to put together all the test cases and reporting
the problem, by the way!
||10.2.0, 11.0, 8.4.0, 9.3.0
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-07
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Confirmed. To determine the final
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Only the first of the two functions is diagnosed for attempting to construct an
int object in an array of size 1. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94195
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96524
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96554
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Only two of the four equivalent instances of buffer overflow in the test
program below are detected. All four should be.
Even the member
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96566
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
The issue described in bug 92815 comment 9 sounds like a similar problem. Does
sending the output to /dev/null instead of a .s file help? If it does, adding
a dg directive to do that might be a solution.
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96511
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=96384
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 87209, which changed state.
Bug 87209 Summary: Wuninitialized or Wmaybe-uninitialized doesn't warn when
malloc's return value is used without being initialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87209
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87209
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 9.2.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96564
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96564
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords||missed-optimization
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Blocks
|1
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-13
Severity|normal |enhancement
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor
||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Severity|normal |enhancement
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following test case shows that while attribute unused suppresses a warning
about unused pointer parameter regardless of its placement
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The C++ front end (but not the C front end) issues a warning for the
declaration of the function argument in f1
|--- |11.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Keywords||patch
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96621
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Blocks|
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
strlen(s) <= N can be folded to true after nul has been stored into s[N].
$ cat t.c && gcc -O2 -S -Wall -fdump-tree-optimized=/dev/stdout t.c
vo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96634
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch I plan to commit:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-August/552161.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88780
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Marietto from comment #6)
...
> In function ‘strncpy’,
> inlined from ‘xc_set_cpufreq_gov’ at xc_pm.c:308:5:
> /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/bits/string_fortified.h:106:10: error:
> ‘__builtin_str
dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2020-08-18
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Confirmed. Reproducible with just -O alone.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96670
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96665
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919
--- Comment #27 from Martin Sebor ---
The fix was applied to GCC 10 but not to GCC 9 or 8. It will not be backported
there. It can be suppressed by introducing a named temporary copy of the
pointer and using it as one other other argument to th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95667
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 95667, which changed state.
Bug 95667 Summary: [11 Regression] unintended warning for memset writing across
multiple members
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95667
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93665
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Although using a non-constant array initialized to all non-nul characters where
a nul-terminated string is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96725
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92828
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 92828, which changed state.
Bug 92828 Summary: array out of bounds access in libcpp/mkdeps.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92828
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92539
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] |[8/9/10/11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90367
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 90367, which changed state.
Bug 90367 Summary: Spurious warning array subscript is above array bounds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90367
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84919
--- Comment #30 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Marietto from comment #28)
> I'm not a coder. can u explain to me carefully what should I do ? thanks.
Usually packages provide a mechanism to prevent compiler warnings from causing
errors (by a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96739
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The math built-in functions frexp, modf, and remquo take pointers to objects
that they are specified to unconditionally store a component of the result in.
Their internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96740
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic,
|
401 - 500 of 8151 matches
Mail list logo
