https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93848
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Assignee|unassigned at gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94527
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/559053.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94527
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
David Malcolm: I went with "overloading" attribute malloc in my patch for the
reasons I explained my comments on your patch and in the patch submission
email. I'm open to changing the name (or the associatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97817
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Sta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97595
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Here's a small test case that causes a bogus false positive with patched GCC
(https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/558775.html).
$ cat t.C && gcc -O2 -S -Wall t.C
struct A { char a[32]; };
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97840
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning code considers more that just TYPE_EMPTY_P():
/* Avoid warning about empty types such as structs with no members.
The first_field() test is important for C++ where the predicate
alone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97840
--- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 49572
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49572&action=edit
Patch under test.
The attached patch avoids the warning on aarch64. Let me finish testing it and
submit it lat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97867
Bug ID: 97867
Summary: FAIL: test-combination.c.exe test-functions.c.exe
test-pr66779.c.exe test-threads.c.exe killed
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83819
Bug 83819 depends on bug 95673, which changed state.
Bug 95673 Summary: missing -Wstring-compare for an impossible strncmp test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95673
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95673
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97860
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
I was going to commit the following but I'll leave it to you.
diff --git a/gcc/c/c-decl.c b/gcc/c/c-decl.c
index d348e39c27a..95cf9e4cb00 100644
--- a/gcc/c/c-decl.c
+++ b/gcc/c/c-decl.c
@@ -5775,6 +5775,10 @
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85315
--- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor ---
Andrew, we discussed the same idea for built-in functions at Couldron. For
instance, in:
void f (const char *s, int n)
{
char a[8];
memcpy (a, s, n); // n must be in [0, 8]
if (n < 0 ||
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97884
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97860
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Actually, I missed that your patch just skips over the error node. That will
leave the attribute spec out of sync with the argument (it contains a '$' for
each VLA bound). Rather than continuing to the next
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97860
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
What I mean is that unless error_mark_node necessarily implies (and guarantees)
the bound is a constant zero (as opposed to a similarly "broken" VLA bound),
simply bailing is safer than skipping it. I have no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97879
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=97879
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97861
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=97817
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
I agree that the text of the warning could be improved. I'm hoping to make
changes along the lines you suggest for GCC 12 (it's too late for GCC 11),
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97915
Bug ID: 97915
Summary: ICE in get_odr_type, at ipa-devirt.c:1930 in pre
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97879
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97861
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97931
Bug ID: 97931
Summary: missing -Wuninitialized initializing an aggregate
member with itself
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97867
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The backtrace from test-combination.c.exe shows the SEGV does happen in
thunk_info::release (). Ditto for test-functions.c.exe.
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x75d74153 in free
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97548
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=97840
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 97840, which changed state.
Bug 97840 Summary: [11 regression] Bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97840
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97955
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97956
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97931
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
-Winit-self isn't enabled by -Wall in C (to accommodate the 'int i = i;' hack)
so unless that changes I'd rather see it in -Wuninitialized (which is in -Wall
in all C languages).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97956
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97955
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94982
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97622
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97956
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97622
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94982
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98040
Bug ID: 98040
Summary: plugin.exp can't run individual .C tests
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92936
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 92936, which changed state.
Bug 92936 Summary: missing warning on a past-the-end store to a PHI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92936
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 92936, which changed state.
Bug 92936 Summary: missing warning on a past-the-end store to a PHI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92936
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89428
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 89428, which changed state.
Bug 89428 Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow on a PHI with variable offset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89428
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92940
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
Bug 88443 depends on bug 92940, which changed state.
Bug 92940 Summary: incorrect offset and size in -Wstringop-overflow for
out-of-bounds store into VLA and two offset ranges
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92940
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98055
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98068
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97172
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97172
--- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor ---
I submitted a simple patch to do the unsharing as the first step toward fixing
this bug here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/559770.html
I'm not sure I understand correctly what you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97172
--- Comment #16 from Martin Sebor ---
The ICE in pr97133 mentions BIND_EXPR. It's still there, even after unsharing:
$ gcc -O2 -S -flto -shared -fPIC /src/gcc/master/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr88701.c
during IPA pass: modref
/src/gcc/master/gcc/tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97172
--- Comment #18 from Martin Sebor ---
Let me explain how this works. The VLA bounds in function parameters are used
in two ways:
1) in the front end, to check function redeclarations involving arrays and VLAs
for equivalence,
2) in the middle en
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98083
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97595
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||s...@li-snyder.org
--- Comment #6 from Ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98055
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Paul Smith from comment #5)
> Is there some preprocessor magic that lets me know that I'm using GCC's
> __builtin_alloc so I can avoid calling alloca(0) in that situation?
The following detects s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80532
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
My hope is to implement the warning in the middle end (I actually have a
prototype but it's not ready for GCC 11).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97373
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85741
Bug 85741 depends on bug 97373, which changed state.
Bug 97373 Summary: missing warning on sprintf into allocated destination
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97373
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97595
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=98091
Bug ID: 98091
Summary: unspecified VLA bound formatted as [0] instead of [*]
in -Wvla-parameter
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98097
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=98111
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98109
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-03
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96344
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90629
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Bug 87403 depends on bug 90629, which changed state.
Bug 90629 Summary: Support for -Wmismatched-new-delete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90629
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94527
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Bug 87403 depends on bug 94527, which changed state.
Bug 94527 Summary: RFE: Add an __attribute__ that marks a function as freeing
an object
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94527
What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87736
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87731
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Bug 87403 depends on bug 87731, which changed state.
Bug 87731 Summary: Detection of mismatched alloc/free pairs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87731
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87736
Bug 87736 depends on bug 87731, which changed state.
Bug 87731 Summary: Detection of mismatched alloc/free pairs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87731
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57111
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98149
Bug ID: 98149
Summary: missing spelling hint for misspelled calls to member
functions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98158
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96963
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||darklythinking at yahoo dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98160
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98166
Bug ID: 98166
Summary: bogus -Wmismatched-dealloc on user-defined allocator
and inlining
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98166
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98168
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98160
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98166
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |11.0
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57111
--- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor ---
The following enables the warning for the test case reported in comment #0 (and
all libstdc++ code):
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561378.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98217
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95768
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Sort of. Richard has some objections that we never resolved but but I'm still
planning to dust it off and resubmit it in some form for GCC 11 with the
corresponding C front end changes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98217
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98266
Bug ID: 98266
Summary: bogus array subscript is partly outside array bounds
on virtual inheritance
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98266
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=98266
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-12-13
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57111
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163
Bug 26163 depends on bug 98160, which changed state.
Bug 98160 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in default_tree_printer at
gcc/tree-diagnostic.c:270 since r11-5732-gdce6c58db87ebf7f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98160
What
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98160
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98305
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98305
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=98305
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Incomprehensible|spurious
|-Wmismatched-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97175
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97131
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97175
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code
--- Comment #4 from Mar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96700
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97172
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The ICE triggers when streaming the main_argc used in the variable bound
expression in char argv[main_argc + 1]. The bound is included in the attribute
access added to the declaration of main by the C front e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97175
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
It definitely would be a step in the right direction. But I'm not sure how
feasible it is to turn any of these tests into compile-time. They often test
different bits in different structures. For example, t
401 - 500 of 1726 matches
Mail list logo
