[Bug tree-optimization/102238] missing -Wrestrict for sprintf into the same member array as argument plus offset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102238 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Target Milestone|---

[Bug middle-end/102934] New: missing warning passing address of first member to free()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102934 Bug ID: 102934 Summary: missing warning passing address of first member to free() Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug middle-end/102934] missing warning passing address of first member to free()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102934 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/102951] New: failure to optimize MIN_EXPR of subobject addresses of the same object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102951 Bug ID: 102951 Summary: failure to optimize MIN_EXPR of subobject addresses of the same object Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug bootstrap/102955] New: assembler errors when bootstrapping with #pragma optimize "0"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102955 Bug ID: 102955 Summary: assembler errors when bootstrapping with #pragma optimize "0" Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/102958] New: std::u8string suboptimal compared to std::string, triggers warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102958 Bug ID: 102958 Summary: std::u8string suboptimal compared to std::string, triggers warnings Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/102958] std::u8string suboptimal compared to std::string, triggers warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102958 --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor --- Something similar afflicts libstdc++-v3/testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/capacity/1.cc but that test is too contrived to matter in practice.

[Bug middle-end/102453] buffer overflow by atomic built-ins not diagnosed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102453 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[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 102453, which changed state. Bug 102453 Summary: buffer overflow by atomic built-ins not diagnosed https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102453 What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug tree-optimization/102919] spurious -Wrestrict warning for sprintf into the same member array as argument plus offset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102919 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/84774] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wrestrict

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84774 Bug 84774 depends on bug 102919, which changed state. Bug 102919 Summary: spurious -Wrestrict warning for sprintf into the same member array as argument plus offset https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102919 What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/102960] [10/11/12 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 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Known to fail|

[Bug testsuite/102904] go testsuite does not always cause a timeout

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102904 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org See

[Bug go/91992] gcc/testsuite/go/index0-out.x SEGV and spinlock during testsuite run

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91992 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug testsuite/102964] [12 regression] libgomp.c/doacross-1.c fails after r12-4725

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102964 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-10-27 Keywords|

[Bug c/102965] New: C11 atomic functions accept incompatible arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102965 Bug ID: 102965 Summary: C11 atomic functions accept incompatible arguments Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug c/102965] C11 atomic functions accept incompatible arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102965 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid See Also|

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|

[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 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|

[Bug translation/93836] teach xgettext what HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT means

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93836 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug translation/93836] teach xgettext what HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT means

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93836 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mliska at suse dot cz --- Comment #5 from

[Bug translation/90041] Command line option without proper quoting in translation message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90041 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- As Jakub says in comment #2, this problem is not in a diagnostic format string that the -Wformat checker sees.

[Bug tree-optimization/102960] [10/11/12 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 Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/102996] No warning on dereferencing of uninitialized pointer in an array, in a loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102996 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Compo

[Bug c/63272] GCC should warn when using pointer to dead scoped variable within the same function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63272 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug middle-end/103036] New: incorrect #pragma GCC diagnostic suppression for macro expansion and -Wuninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103036 Bug ID: 103036 Summary: incorrect #pragma GCC diagnostic suppression for macro expansion and -Wuninitialized Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Sev

[Bug middle-end/103036] incorrect #pragma GCC diagnostic suppression for macro expansion and -Wuninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103036 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Blocks|

[Bug middle-end/108154] Inappropriate -Wstringop-overread in the C99 [static n] func param decl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108154 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[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 108154, which changed state. Bug 108154 Summary: Inappropriate -Wstringop-overread in the C99 [static n] func param decl https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108154 What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/105585] [12/13 Regression] Spurious stringop-overflow warning with since r12-4725-g88b504b7a8c5affb

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105585 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|NEW

[Bug c/105689] Bogus `-Wstringop-overflow=` after accessing field, then containing struct (wrong "region size")

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105689 --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- It is because of CSE. The warning sees this IL: _1 = &me_3(D)->sub.field1; access_1 (_1); access_2 (_1); and so it warns for the second call because the size of me->sub.field1 passed to it is smaller

[Bug middle-end/105604] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE: in tree_to_shwi with vla in struct and sprintf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105604 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10/11/12 Regression] ICE:

[Bug middle-end/93517] bogus -Wrestrict on sprintf with unknown strings bounded by array size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93517 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/84774] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wrestrict

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84774 Bug 84774 depends on bug 93517, which changed state. Bug 93517 Summary: bogus -Wrestrict on sprintf with unknown strings bounded by array size https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93517 What|Removed |Ad

[Bug middle-end/105762] [12/13 Regression] -Warray-bounds false positives for integer-to-pointer casts since r12-2132-ga110855667782dac

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105762 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID See Also|

[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 105762, which changed state. Bug 105762 Summary: [12/13 Regression] -Warray-bounds false positives for integer-to-pointer casts since r12-2132-ga110855667782dac https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105762

[Bug middle-end/101836] __builtin_object_size(P->M, 1) where M is an array and the last member of a struct fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 --- Comment #18 from Martin Sebor --- The zero size case exists (and is documented) solely as a substitute for flexible array members. Treating is as an ordinary array would disable that extension. It might be appropriate to provide a separate

[Bug middle-end/101836] __builtin_object_size(P->M, 1) where M is an array and the last member of a struct fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 --- Comment #20 from Martin Sebor --- Well, I just "asked" for such an option the same way you asked for -fstrict-flex-arrays in comment #3, because I believe it would be useful to make the BOS improvements you're looking for available even to c

[Bug tree-optimization/97185] inconsistent builtin elimination for impossible range

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97185 --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- There's a heuristic for ranges of allocation sizes to exclude zero (size_range_flags) that comes into play here. The actual range isn't "impossible" in the sense it's necessarily invalid. It just means the s

[Bug c/106264] New: spurious -Wunused-value on a folded frexp, modf, and remquo calls with unused result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106264 Bug ID: 106264 Summary: spurious -Wunused-value on a folded frexp, modf, and remquo calls with unused result Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Sev

[Bug c/106264] [10/11/12/13 Regression] spurious -Wunused-value on a folded frexp, modf, and remquo calls with unused result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106264 --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- The most likely culprit is r261705.

[Bug middle-end/105746] vector::resize causes Warray-bounds when optimizer uses __builtin_memcpy or __builtin_memmove since r12-2793-g81d6cdd335ffc60c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105746 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |middle-end --- Comment #2 from Martin Se

[Bug tree-optimization/101272] [12 Regression] error: ‘nonnull’ argument ‘message’ compared to NULL [-Werror=nonnull-compare] since r12-1805

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101272 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12 Regression] error: |[12 Regression] error:

[Bug tree-optimization/101272] [12 Regression] error: ‘nonnull’ argument ‘message’ compared to NULL [-Werror=nonnull-compare] since r12-1805

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101272 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/100685] #pragma GCC push_options ineffective for optimize options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100685 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- Yes, thanks.

[Bug c/101289] bogus -Wvla-paramater warning when using const for vla param

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.2 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/101289] bogus -Wvla-paramater warning when using const for vla param

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug ipa/101279] Function attributes often block inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101279 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/97548] bogus -Wvla-parameter on a bound expression involving a parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97548 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Known to fail|

[Bug c/101289] bogus -Wvla-paramater warning when using const for vla param

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Known to fail|

[Bug middle-end/101292] [12 Regression] recent valgrind error in warning-control.cc since r12-1804-g65870e75616ee4359d1c13b99be794e6a577bc65

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101292 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug middle-end/101300] -fsanitize=undefined suppresses -Wuninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101300 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug middle-end/101300] -fsanitize=undefined suppresses -Wuninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101300 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Targ

[Bug tree-optimization/86650] -Warray-bounds missing inlining context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86650 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|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 86650, which changed state. Bug 86650 Summary: -Warray-bounds missing inlining context https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86650 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/55881] #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored ignored when inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55881 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.1.0, 4.7.0,

[Bug target/101363] many ICEs after r12-2089 on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101363 --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- I don't see the ICE with my cross-compiler and the stack trace doesn't correspond to the latest sources (there's no call to error() at gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-builtins.c:1588; a call to error_at() that rep

[Bug target/101363] many ICEs after r12-2089 on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101363 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- No, you didn't. I missed the one %K in aarch64.c. Let me commit the fix below to fix the bootstrap error. I'm still not sure what the deal is with the tests though. diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64

[Bug target/101363] many ICEs after r12-2089 on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101363 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/99121] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE tree check: expected integer_cst, have var_decl in get_len, at tree.h:6037

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99121 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|11.0|11.1.0 Summary|[9/10/11/12 Reg

[Bug tree-optimization/100137] [10/11 Regression] -Warray-bounds false positive on varying offset plus negative

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100137 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|11.0|11.1.0 Summary|[10/11/12 Regr

[Bug middle-end/97027] missing warning on buffer overflow storing a larger scalar into a smaller array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|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 97027, which changed state. Bug 97027 Summary: missing warning on buffer overflow storing a larger scalar into a smaller array https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027 What|Removed

[Bug c/101364] [12 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class ‘type’, have ‘exceptional’ (error_mark) in c_type_promotes_to, at c/c-typeck.c:278

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101364 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-07-07 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c/101358] Warn when saving a pointer to an object with temporary lifetime

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101358 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Blocks|

[Bug bootstrap/101374] [12 Regression] bootstrap failure varpool.c:490:19: error: array subscript 'varpool_node[0]' is partly outside array bounds of 'varpool_node [0]' [-Werror=array-bounds]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever confirmed|0

[Bug bootstrap/101374] [12 Regression] bootstrap failure varpool.c:490:19: error: array subscript 'varpool_node[0]' is partly outside array bounds of 'varpool_node [0]' [-Werror=array-bounds]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374 --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor --- For the test case the warning sees this: int varpool_node::_ZN12varpool_node16get_availabilityEv.part.0 (struct varpool_node * const this) { ... struct symtab_node * _7; struct varpool_node * _12; ..

[Bug bootstrap/101374] [12 Regression] bootstrap failure varpool.c:490:19: error: array subscript 'varpool_node[0]' is partly outside array bounds of 'varpool_node [0]' [-Werror=array-bounds]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor

[Bug tree-optimization/101379] libatomic build failure on arm after r12-2132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101379 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|DUPLICATE

[Bug bootstrap/101372] [12 Regression] Bootstrap failure compiling gcc/cp/module.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug testsuite/100451] g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-20.C XPASSes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100451 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-7-8 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[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 100451, which changed state. Bug 100451 Summary: g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-20.C XPASSes https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100451 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug bootstrap/101374] [12 Regression] bootstrap failure varpool.c:490:19: error: array subscript 'varpool_node[0]' is partly outside array bounds of 'varpool_node [0]' [-Werror=array-bounds]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374 --- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor --- Thanks for the confirmation!

[Bug tree-optimization/101379] libatomic build failure on arm after r12-2132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101379 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- Christophe, does this patch work for you? Another alternative is to add #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored around the dereference. diff --git a/libatomic/config/linux/arm/host-config.h b/libatomic/config/linux/

[Bug bootstrap/101372] [12 Regression] -Warray-bounds in gcc/cp/module.cc causing bootstrap failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Summary|[12 Regressi

[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 101372, which changed state. Bug 101372 Summary: [12 Regression] -Warray-bounds in gcc/cp/module.cc causing bootstrap failure https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101372 What|Removed

[Bug testsuite/101381] [12 regression] missing warning in g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-20.C after r12-2132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101381 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/101379] libatomic arm build failure after r12-2132 due -Warray-bounds on a constant address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101379 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- I have no easy way to test the patch so it might need a little tweaking. It looks like the __kernel_helper_version macro is used as an lvalue so the macro needs to expand to a call to the __kernel_helper_ver

[Bug middle-end/97027] missing warning on buffer overflow storing a larger scalar into a smaller array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[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 97027, which changed state. Bug 97027 Summary: missing warning on buffer overflow storing a larger scalar into a smaller array https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027 What|Removed

[Bug middle-end/95681] False positive uninitialized variable usage in decNumberCompareTotalMag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95681 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug middle-end/97027] missing warning on buffer overflow storing a larger scalar into a smaller array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- Something like the patch in comment 3 to handle the overflow in tree-ssa-strlen.c is still needed. Otherwise GCC does issue a -Warray-bounds but that's enabled only with -Wall (the test expects buffer overflo

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101397 Bug ID: 101397 Summary: spurious warning writing to the result of stpcpy minus 1 Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug middle-end/101397] [11/12 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 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/101401] New: strlen of a constant char vector not folded

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101401 Bug ID: 101401 Summary: strlen of a constant char vector not folded Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tr

[Bug bootstrap/101379] libatomic arm build failure after r12-2132 due -Warray-bounds on a constant address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101379 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-07-09 Target Milestone|---

[Bug middle-end/101415] [12 Regression] Bogus -Warray-bounds warning with stpcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101415 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE CC|

[Bug middle-end/101397] [11/12 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 CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 fro

[Bug libstdc++/101361] Bogus -Wstringop-overread warning with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101361 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-07-12 CC|

[Bug libstdc++/101361] Bogus -Wstringop-overread warning with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101361 --- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor --- The warning depends on the optimizer for eliminating unreachable code but not all of it can be. For example, the abort below isn't. In theory it could be but with longer strings that require memory allocati

[Bug bootstrap/101374] [12 Regression] bootstrap failure varpool.c:490:19: error: array subscript 'varpool_node[0]' is partly outside array bounds of 'varpool_node [0]' [-Werror=array-bounds]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/100137] [10/11 Regression] -Warray-bounds false positive on varying offset plus negative

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100137 Bug 100137 depends on bug 101374, which changed state. Bug 101374 Summary: [12 Regression] bootstrap failure varpool.c:490:19: error: array subscript 'varpool_node[0]' is partly outside array bounds of 'varpool_node [0]' [-Werror=array-bounds]

[Bug tree-optimization/101436] Yet another bogus "array subscript is partly outside array bounds"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101436 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also|https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill | |a/show_bug.cgi?id=98

[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 101436, which changed state. Bug 101436 Summary: Yet another bogus "array subscript is partly outside array bounds" https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101436 What|Removed |Add

[Bug middle-end/97027] missing warning on buffer overflow storing a larger scalar into a smaller array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor -

[Bug middle-end/97027] missing warning on buffer overflow storing a larger scalar into a smaller array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97027 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/101455] New: missing -Wstringop-overflow on buffer overflow by a complex number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101455 Bug ID: 101455 Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow on buffer overflow by a complex number Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/101397] [11/12 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 Keywords||patch --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor

[Bug c/101289] bogus -Wvla-paramater warning when using const for vla param

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|12.0| --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- F

[Bug c/97548] bogus -Wvla-parameter on a bound expression involving a parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97548 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- Fixed for GCC 12.0.

<    11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   >