https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100861
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The virtual dtor forces an out-of-line call to the Grommet dtor which then
calls ::operator delete(), so the warning has nothing to complain about. It
sees this code (compile with -fdump-tree-optimized=/dev/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100876
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||100406
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100876
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100876
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100719
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|12.0|
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100732
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] ICE with |[11 Regression] ICE on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100783
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|12.0|
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69972
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-02-29 00:00:00 |2021-6-4
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70057
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|5.3.0, 6.3.0, 7.0 |10.2.0, 11.1.0, 12.0,
|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100919
Bug ID: 100919
Summary: multiple -Wdeprecated-declarations on a call to a
deprecated member function pointer
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100919
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.1.0, 12.0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84476
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
The same problem applies to attribute noreturn (but not deprecated). Clang,
ICC, and Visual C++ behave as expected in both cases, suggesting GCC should
change.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100944
Bug ID: 100944
Summary: missing -Warray-bounds accessing a flexible array
member of a nested struct
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100842
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100994
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101010
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98512
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
Latest patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572515.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98871
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Latest patch posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/572515.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100944
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
The front end does complain but only with -Wpedantic.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100876
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|-Wmismatched-new-delete |[11 Regression]
|shoul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101074
Bug ID: 101074
Summary: calloc result not treated as zeroed out
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101042
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-06-15
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54202
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Serdar Sanli from comment #9)
> A simpler example not involving any globals, causing Wfree-nonheap-object
> warning since GCC11
This is actually a bug in the example: it's invalid to decrement a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99910
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100485
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to fiesh from comment #7)
> On a random related note, the man page says -Wmismatched-new-delete is
> enabled by default, but playing around with it, it seems it's only turned on
> by -Wall: https://
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100250
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 100250, which changed state.
Bug 100250 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE related to -Wmaybe-uninitialized
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100250
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100307
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100399
Bug 100399 depends on bug 100307, which changed state.
Bug 100307 Summary: [11 Regression] spurious -Wplacement-new with negative
pointer offset
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100307
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100574
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 100574, which changed state.
Bug 100574 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: in size_remaining, at builtins.c:413
with -O3 -ftracer -fno-tree-dominator-opts -fno-tree-fre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100574
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100619
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100684
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95507
Bug 95507 depends on bug 100684, which changed state.
Bug 100684 Summary: [11 Regression] spurious -Wnonnull with -O1 on a C++ lambda
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100684
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100732
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100783
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100876
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100406
Bug 100406 depends on bug 100876, which changed state.
Bug 100876 Summary: [11 Regression] -Wmismatched-new-delete should understand
placement new when it's not inlined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100876
What|Rem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100719
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.2|12.0
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98571
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.2
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18487
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution|WONTFIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101134
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101134
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning architecture doesn't make it possible to distinguish between the
two situations you describe. No flow-sensitive GCC warning points out a
certain bug: every instance needs to be viewed as only a p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100137
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101134
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
It wouldn't be right to change the wording of just one warning because the
problem applies to all flow based diagnostics. They all depend on various
optimizations that propagate constants, add or remove test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101134
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Changing the warning text from "does X" to "may do X" wouldn't help because all
instances of it (or all warnings) would have to use the latter form, and that's
already implied by the former. Every GCC warnin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101134
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
I don't need to be convinced that it would be nice to be able to differentiate
between certain bugs and possible ones. The text of this class of warnings
already does differentiate between "may write/read/a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101216
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101216
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101204
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
gtype-desc.c is a generated file. There's also r12-1096. Without it, r12-1801
wouldn't compile.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101219
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The code fails in the assert below where binfo is null. The full stack trace
follows. The difference is that before r12-1804 warn_for_null_address() would
return without doing anything because TREE_NO_WARN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89976
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
No, that change (r12-1804 and related) doesn't affect these cases (and wasn't
expected to).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99959
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
No, that change (r12-1805 and related) doesn't affect these cases (and wasn't
expected to; the warning is still suppressed in the esra pass).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74762
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 74762, which changed state.
Bug 74762 Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] missing uninitialized warning (C++,
parenthesized expr, TREE_NO_WARNING)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74762
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99251
Bug 99251 depends on bug 74762, which changed state.
Bug 74762 Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] missing uninitialized warning (C++,
parenthesized expr, TREE_NO_WARNING)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74762
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74765
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 74765, which changed state.
Bug 74765 Summary: missing uninitialized warning (parenthesis, TREE_NO_WARNING
abuse)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74765
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
--- Comment #25 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #24)
> (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> > The warning is by design.
>
> That just means the design is bad. Especially in the embedded world, using
> memor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104655
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
--- Comment #27 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 104655 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104657
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104692
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-02-25
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104746
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104603
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104761
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104761
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] False |[12 Regression] bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104746
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
This is an example of the "symbolic constraints involving multiple arguments"
that I mentioned in comment #1. There is no logic to determine from the
complex relat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104746
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 Regression] False |False positive for
|po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104702
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
The warning mapping needs to be updated whenever a location of a tree or
gimple* changes (gimple_set_block() calls gimple_set_location() which calls
copy_warning() so that part at least should work). I saw c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104761
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104077
Bug 104077 depends on bug 104761, which changed state.
Bug 104761 Summary: [12 Regression] bogus -Wdangling-pointer with cleanup and
infinite loop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104761
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104746
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Andrew, quoting from the documentation for the warning:
Unknown string arguments whose length cannot be assumed to be bounded either
by the directive’s precision, or by a finite set of string literals they
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104789
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
Created attachment 52574
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52574&action=edit
Output of debug_ranger() for the affected function.
The IL the first warning triggers for in the test case in c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104789
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
A much simplified test case that reproduces the same warning (with both GCC 12
and 11) is below. The underlying problem is that although GCC does have a way
to represent simple disjoint ranges of variable va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104746
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
Martin, since the warning is working correctly (even if it's arguably not as
clear as it could be), I'd like us to close this. If you agree, can you please
go ahead and mark this as resolved (either invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104341
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98503
--- Comment #17 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 104341 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104854
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Sum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104746
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104789
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
The direct store subset of -Wstringop-overflow that runs in the strlen pass
(i.e., those handled in strlen_pass::handle_store) might be better handled in
VRP and issued under -Warray-bounds. The challenge t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104854
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
It would be useful to separate these warnings into multiple levels: level 1 for
invalid code, and higher levels for suspicious (or pointless) code, similarly
to -Wformat-overflow.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104855
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104922
Bug ID: 104922
Summary: bogus -Wformat-overflow=2 due to missing range for
related variables
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnosti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104746
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104922
Bug 104922 depends on bug 104746, which changed state.
Bug 104746 Summary: False positive for -Wformat-overflow=2 since
r12-7033-g3c9f762ad02f398c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104746
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104922
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|lto |missed-optimization
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104854
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Moving warnings into the analyzer and scaling it up to be able to run by
default, during development, sounds like a good long-term plan. Until that
happens, rather than gratuitously removing warnings that we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103483
--- Comment #23 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #22)
Your question may have been rhetorical but to be explicit, the real difference
is hidden in the implementation (which is why these warnings can sometimes seem
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104436
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104077
Bug 104077 depends on bug 104436, which changed state.
Bug 104436 Summary: [12 Regression] spurious -Wdangling-pointer assigning local
address to a class passed by value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104436
What|Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104958
Bug ID: 104958
Summary: missing -Wdangling-pointer leaking local address
through struct member
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104958
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-03-16
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104492
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
--- Comment #31 from Martin Sebor ---
I suppose we could move this warning under level 2 until this is handled
better. -Warray-bounds already has two levels with level 2 being more noisy,
and it might be useful to add a level to -Wstringop-overr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104965
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104969
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40635
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41540
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|msebor at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67872
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|msebor at gcc dot
901 - 1000 of 1726 matches
Mail list logo
