[Bug tree-optimization/101793] Incorrect -Wmaybe-uninitialized on an unreachable use at -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101793 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|msebor at gcc dot

[Bug middle-end/104260] [12 Regression] Misplaced waccess3 pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104260 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/101831] [11/12 Regression] Spurious maybe-uninitialized warning on std::array::size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101831 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/104232] [12 Regression] spurious -Wuse-after-free after conditional free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104232 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor

[Bug tree-optimization/104269] [12 Regression] Bogus -Wuse-after-free seen in xen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104269 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/104232] [12 Regression] spurious -Wuse-after-free after conditional free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104232 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- *** Bug 104269 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug middle-end/104075] bogus/missing -Wuse-after-free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104075 Bug 104075 depends on bug 104269, which changed state. Bug 104269 Summary: [12 Regression] Bogus -Wuse-after-free seen in xen https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104269 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/104232] [12 Regression] spurious -Wuse-after-free after conditional free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104232 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- The full link to the patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/589366.html

[Bug middle-end/104232] [12 Regression] spurious -Wuse-after-free after conditional free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104232 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/104075] bogus/missing -Wuse-after-free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104075 Bug 104075 depends on bug 104232, which changed state. Bug 104232 Summary: [12 Regression] spurious -Wuse-after-free after conditional free https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104232 What|Removed |Add

[Bug tree-optimization/101831] [11/12 Regression] Spurious maybe-uninitialized warning on std::array::size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101831 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor

[Bug tree-optimization/104336] New: bogus -Wrestrict for std::string assignment with

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104336 Bug ID: 104336 Summary: bogus -Wrestrict for std::string assignment with Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/104336] bogus -Wrestrict for std::string assignment with

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104336 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic URL|

[Bug middle-end/104260] [12 Regression] Misplaced waccess3 pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104260 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor

[Bug tree-optimization/101831] [11 Regression] Spurious maybe-uninitialized warning on std::array::size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101831 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[11/12 Regression] Spurious |[11 Regression] Spurious

[Bug middle-end/104076] bogus -Wdangling-pointer on a conditional

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104076 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- Unlike the false positive -Wuse-after-free in pr104232, the instance of -Wdangling-pointer in this case (a PHI argument) is intentional so that we diagnose problems like those in the request for it (pr63272),

[Bug c++/104359] GCC Treats bool with value != 1 as falsey when picking branches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104359 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug target/90524] [10/11 Regression] attribute name and argument mixed up in an error message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90524 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Summary|[10/11/12 Regressi

[Bug tree-optimization/104119] [12 Regression] unexpected -Wformat-overflow after strlen in ILP32 since Ranger integration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104119 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/85741] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wformat-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741 Bug 85741 depends on bug 104119, which changed state. Bug 104119 Summary: [12 Regression] unexpected -Wformat-overflow after strlen in ILP32 since Ranger integration https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104119 What|Removed

[Bug c/104367] Possible improvements for -Wmisleading-indentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104367 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug middle-end/104260] [12 Regression] Misplaced waccess3 pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104260 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/104436] New: spurious -Wdangling-pointer assigning local address to a class passed by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104436 Bug ID: 104436 Summary: spurious -Wdangling-pointer assigning local address to a class passed by value Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug middle-end/104436] spurious -Wdangling-pointer assigning local address to a class passed by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104436 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-02-07 URL|

[Bug middle-end/104436] spurious -Wdangling-pointer assigning local address to a class passed by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104436 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug tree-optimization/104165] [12 Regression] -Warray-bounds for unreachable code inlined from std::sort()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104165 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://bugzilla.redhat.com

[Bug middle-end/104436] [12 Regression] spurious -Wdangling-pointer assigning local address to a class passed by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104436 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Summary|spurious -Wdangl

[Bug middle-end/104355] Misleading -Warray-bounds documentation says "always out of bounds"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104355 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug middle-end/104355] Misleading -Warray-bounds documentation says "always out of bounds"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104355 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c/81524] Bogus or missing warnings when dereferencing pointer to deallocated stack memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81524 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Sta

[Bug middle-end/104077] bogus/missing -Wdangling-pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104077 Bug 104077 depends on bug 81524, which changed state. Bug 81524 Summary: Bogus or missing warnings when dereferencing pointer to deallocated stack memory https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81524 What|Removed

[Bug middle-end/98900] misleading -Wuninitialized using a variable outside its lifetime with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98900 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- GCC 12 issues -Wdangling-poinnter for this bug now at all optimization levels. It still issues -Wuninitialized at -O1 and above, but with the dangling pointer warning I don't think it's a big deal. It should

[Bug tree-optimization/104475] [12 Regression] Wstringop-overflow + atomics incorrect warning on dynamic object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104475 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Last reconfi

[Bug middle-end/81524] Bogus or missing warnings when dereferencing pointer to deallocated stack memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81524 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |middle-end --- Comment #8 from Martin Seb

[Bug middle-end/104355] Misleading -Warray-bounds documentation says "always out of bounds"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104355 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor

[Bug middle-end/104492] [12 Regression] Bogus dangling pointer warning at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Component|c++

[Bug middle-end/104492] [12 Regression] Bogus dangling pointer warning at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- It might be possible to run the pass earlier to avoid this problem but I haven't managed to find a spot that didn't regress some -Wdangling-pointer tests (at least g++.dg/warn/Wdangling-pointer-2.C). Alterna

[Bug middle-end/104492] [12 Regression] Bogus dangling pointer warning at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- Setting aside the question of warning about inequality expressions involving invalid pointers, it seems that if the annotation 'candidates ={v} {CLOBBER(eol)};' is to be interpreted as one would intuitively e

[Bug tree-optimization/102006] A false warning "Array subscript -N is outside array bounds warning"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102006 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/56456] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Warray-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456 Bug 56456 depends on bug 102006, which changed state. Bug 102006 Summary: A false warning "Array subscript -N is outside array bounds warning" https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102006 What|Removed |A

[Bug c/103056] attribute access "none" is not ignored as it should

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103056 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|

[Bug c/102967] confusing location in -Waddress for a subexpression of a ternary expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- The expression pa->c is only valid if pa points to a valid object.

[Bug c/102967] confusing location in -Waddress for a subexpression of a ternary expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- Both for the purposes of the warning (which can be more restrictive than what the language considers valid), and in the C language, the semantics of the -> expression depend on the first operand designating a

[Bug tree-optimization/103111] bogus stringop overflow warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103111 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug bootstrap/102831] [12 regression] Spurious -Wparentheses etc. warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102831 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- I have been testing the following changes to deal with other location and warning related problems. They might be worth giving a try to see if they help with this issue as well. diff --git a/gcc/diagnostic

[Bug tree-optimization/103121] [12 Regression] Warnings in cp/optimize.c causing build failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/103121] [12 Regression] Warnings in cp/optimize.c causing build failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --

[Bug tree-optimization/103121] [12 Regression] Warnings in cp/optimize.c causing build failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug tree-optimization/103121] [12 Regression] Warnings in cp/optimize.c causing build failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121 --- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor --- The [1, 1] range comes from a call to qry->range_of_expr (vr, exp, stmt) in in get_size_range() in pointer-query.cc: (gdb) p debug(gimple_bb(stmt)) [local count: 118111600]: _4 = _1 + 1; grp_name_37 = __bui

[Bug tree-optimization/103121] [12 Regression] Warnings in cp/optimize.c causing build failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121 --- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor --- Sorry, I've been having trouble with GDB and so I'm running two GDB sessions and I have been mixing output from both of them. I see the warning for the store to *_23 in BB 13, not for BB 12. Here's a fresh

[Bug tree-optimization/103121] [12 Regression] Warnings in cp/optimize.c causing build failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121 --- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor --- Okay, here's my question: when I call range_of_expr (vr, _4, stmt) with stmt being 'grp_name_37 = __builtin_alloca (_4)' in BB 4, should I not expect the result to be either VR_VARYING or [0, +INF]? What I

[Bug tree-optimization/103121] [12 Regression] Warnings in cp/optimize.c causing build failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121 --- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor --- Here's a reduced test case that reproduces the problem with an x86_64-linux GCC in ILP32 mode: $ cat pr103121.C && gcc -O2 -S -Wall -m32 pr103121.C typedef typeof (sizeof 0) size_t; struct tree_node { co

[Bug middle-end/103143] New: [12 Regression] ICE due to infinite recursion in pointer-query.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103143 Bug ID: 103143 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE due to infinite recursion in pointer-query.cc Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/103143] [12 Regression] ICE due to infinite recursion in pointer-query.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103143 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Keywords|

[Bug middle-end/101397] [11 Regression] spurious warning writing to the result of stpcpy minus 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101397 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||103143 --- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor

[Bug tree-optimization/103121] [12 Regression] Warnings in cp/optimize.c causing build failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121 --- Comment #15 from Martin Sebor --- The call is made from the strlen pass which still does apparently use EVRP. I believe Aldy's been moving it away from it (some of his changes are still pending) as have I, so things are still in flux. I do

[Bug tree-optimization/102690] [12 regression] g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102690 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- It was backported here: g:19dcea67ac40cfdeb396fa264ebbe04fbe61fdc0

[Bug bootstrap/102831] [12 regression] Spurious -Wparentheses etc. warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102831 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #6) If it's reliably reproducible (ideally with a cross), can you attach a translation unit and the options to use to reproduce it with?

[Bug middle-end/103143] [12 Regression] ICE due to infinite recursion in pointer-query.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103143 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor

[Bug tree-optimization/102513] [10.11.12 Regression] Many false positive warnings with recursive function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102513 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.3.0, 11.2.0, 12.0 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/101919] Inconsistent -Wstringop-overread warning with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101919 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||97048 CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/103145] False positive of -Wstringop-overread on gcc-11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103145 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.3.0, 12.0 Blocks|

[Bug tree-optimization/103145] [11 Regression] bogus -Wstringop-overread with an array argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103145 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|False positive of |[11 Regression] bogus

[Bug c++/59702] Infinite recursion in a late-specified return type of a function template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59702 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/56189] Infinite recursion with noexcept when instantiating function template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56189 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/88232] Please implement -Winfinite-recursion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88232 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |middle-end Keywords|

[Bug tree-optimization/103161] [12 Regression] Better ranges cause builtin-sprintf-warn-16.c failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103161 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug middle-end/101917] [11 Regression] Spurious -Wstringop-overread with -flto when passing zero sized arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101917 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Component|fortran

[Bug testsuite/103161] [12 Regression] Better ranges cause builtin-sprintf-warn-16.c failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103161 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Component|tree-optimization |testsuite --- Comment #5 from Martin Seb

[Bug testsuite/103161] [12 Regression] Better ranges cause builtin-sprintf-warn-16.c failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103161 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- I bet you can't see the failures because they depend on fixes in a patch that hasn't been committed yet: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/583735.html But I wonder if there actually i

[Bug testsuite/103161] [12 Regression] Better ranges cause builtin-sprintf-warn-16.c failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103161 --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor --- Aaah, never mind. The test depends on the unspecified order of argument evaluation. Doh!

[Bug testsuite/103161] [12 Regression] Better ranges cause builtin-sprintf-warn-16.c failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103161 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/103176] -foptimize-strlen causes stringop-overflow warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103176 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/103173] strncpy output may be truncated copying 32 bytes from a string of length 1439 (bogus) [-Werror=stringop-truncation]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103173 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org St

[Bug tree-optimization/92879] [10/11 Regression] incorrect warning of __builtin_memset offset is out of the bounds on zero-size allocation and initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92879 --- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor --- The test fails everywhere. It regressed with r12-5107 (see pr102690). The solution was to xfail it (to your point in pr101674).

[Bug jit/103199] New: FAIL: ../jit/docs/examples/tut04-toyvm/toyvm.c, initial compilation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103199 Bug ID: 103199 Summary: FAIL: ../jit/docs/examples/tut04-toyvm/toyvm.c, initial compilation Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug testsuite/100655] 'g++.dg/tsan/pthread_cond_clockwait.C' FAILs due to 'pthread_cond_clockwait' missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100655 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Keyw

[Bug target/103200] New: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr91333.c scan-assembler-times vmovapd|vmovsd 3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103200 Bug ID: 103200 Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr91333.c scan-assembler-times vmovapd|vmovsd 3 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/102969] [12 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails after r12-4726

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102969 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/88443] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wstringop-overflow warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443 Bug 88443 depends on bug 102969, which changed state. Bug 102969 Summary: [12 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails after r12-4726 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102969 What|Removed

[Bug middle-end/98871] Cannot silence -Wmaybe-uninitialized at declaration site

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98871 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/24639] [meta-bug] bug to track all Wuninitialized issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639 Bug 24639 depends on bug 98871, which changed state. Bug 98871 Summary: Cannot silence -Wmaybe-uninitialized at declaration site https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98871 What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug tree-optimization/98512] [11/12 Regression] “#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored” ineffective in conjunction with alias attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98512 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||12.0 Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/98465] Bogus -Wstringop-overread with -std=gnu++20 -O2 and std::string::insert

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|11.0| Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/97048] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wstringop-overread warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97048 Bug 97048 depends on bug 98465, which changed state. Bug 98465 Summary: Bogus -Wstringop-overread with -std=gnu++20 -O2 and std::string::insert https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465 What|Removed |A

[Bug tree-optimization/103176] -foptimize-strlen causes stringop-overflow warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103176 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/88443] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wstringop-overflow warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443 Bug 88443 depends on bug 103176, which changed state. Bug 103176 Summary: -foptimize-strlen causes stringop-overflow warning https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103176 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug tree-optimization/103223] [12 regression] Access attribute dropped when ipa-sra is applied

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103223 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #4) > (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #0) ... > > Martin, I wonder if if you would be OK with simply dropping the access when > > function signature changes (whic

[Bug tree-optimization/102009] [12 Regression] ICE: in gimple_call_arg, at gimple.h:3272 by r12-2976

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102009 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- gimple_builtin_call_types_compatible_p() returns false even for calls with trivial mismatches like an int where a size_t is expected. I would prefer a less restrictive test that doesn't prevent detecting the

[Bug c/101702] [12 Regression] ICE: in handle_argspec_attribute, at c-family/c-attribs.c:3623

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101702 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug tree-optimization/103215] [12 regression] gcc generates unexpected warnings on libx11-1.7.2: error: array subscript -2 is outside array bounds of since r12-3124-g820f0940d7ace130

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103215 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||56456 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor

[Bug tree-optimization/103215] [12 regression] gcc generates unexpected warnings on libx11-1.7.2: error: array subscript -2 is outside array bounds of since r12-3124-g820f0940d7ace130

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103215 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug tree-optimization/103223] [12 regression] Access attribute dropped when ipa-sra is applied

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103223 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- For an attribute access that's explicitly specified on the declaration of a function I think these steps should work: 1) Call init_attr_rdwr_indices() to initialize the mapping for the original function with

[Bug tree-optimization/102759] [12 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault in maybe_check_access_sizes since r12-2976-gb48d4e6818674898

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102759 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor

[Bug tree-optimization/103176] -foptimize-strlen causes stringop-overflow warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103176 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- You're welcome and no need to apologize. We want to improve the warnings (and the rest of the compiler) and these reports help us understand both the limitations and opportunities for improvements, or at lea

[Bug tree-optimization/103223] [12 regression] Access attribute dropped when ipa-sra is applied

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103223 --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor --- Outside of code comments only the user-visible attribute access interface is documented in the manual. The main difference is probably that attribute access can be added by the user for any pair of arguments

[Bug tree-optimization/102960] [10/11 Regression] ICE: in sign_mask, at wide-int.h:855 in GCC 10.3.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102960 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|12.0| Known to work|

[Bug c/101702] [12 Regression] ICE: in handle_argspec_attribute, at c-family/c-attribs.c:3623

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101702 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > Martin clearly prefers some other fix, so I'll let him fix it himself. I think I just misread your change. It doesn't cause the problem I was concerned about.

[Bug c/103292] [12 regression] xorg-server-1.20.13 -Werror=array-bounds false positive on unions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103292 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/101702] [12 Regression] ICE: in handle_argspec_attribute, at c-family/c-attribs.c:3623

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101702 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

<    8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   >