[Bug c/116735] ICE in build_counted_by_ref

2024-09-30 Thread qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116735 --- Comment #3 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- This is a bug when handling the counted_by attribute when the corresponding field doesn't exist. under such situation, in addition to issue error, we also need to remove the added "counted_by" a

[Bug tree-optimization/88771] Misleading -Werror=array-bounds error

2024-10-01 Thread qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88771 qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org -

[Bug tree-optimization/116585] [12/13/14 Regression] SSA corruption with -O3

2024-09-25 Thread qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116585 --- Comment #5 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > Fixed on trunk sofar. thanks a lot for fixing this so quick. Will this patch be backported to older releases?

[Bug tree-optimization/116519] Arm64(?): undue array bounds warning

2024-10-03 Thread qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116519 --- Comment #3 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- The warning disappears after adding -fno-thread-jumps. looks like similar issue as PR109071

[Bug tree-optimization/108770] Spurious -Warray-bounds at -O2 (gcc >= 12)

2024-10-03 Thread qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108770 qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c/106762] incorrect array bounds warning (-Warray-bounds) at -O2 on memset()

2024-10-03 Thread qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106762 qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/85788] False positive of -Wstringop-overflow= warning

2024-10-03 Thread qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85788 qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org -

[Bug c/116016] enhancement: add __builtin_set_counted_by(P->FAM, COUNT) or equivalent

2024-10-15 Thread qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016 qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UN

[Bug c/119001] [15 Regression] ICE: in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.cc:5833

2025-02-25 Thread qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119001 qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot

[Bug middle-end/119716] segmentation fault when Passing NULL pointer to _bdos with counted_by attribute

2025-04-11 Thread qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119716 --- Comment #5 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > If the compiler compiles it and it misbehaves at runtime, that is valid > behavior for undefined behavior. ICE (as in the other PR) is something we

[Bug middle-end/119716] segmentation fault when Passing NULL pointer to _bdos with counted_by attribute

2025-04-11 Thread qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119716 qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug middle-end/119716] New: segmentation fault when Passing NULL pointer to _bdos with counted_by attribute

2025-04-10 Thread qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119716 Bug ID: 119716 Summary: segmentation fault when Passing NULL pointer to _bdos with counted_by attribute Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity

[Bug middle-end/119716] segmentation fault when Passing NULL pointer to _bdos with counted_by attribute

2025-04-10 Thread qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119716 qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |qinzhao at gcc dot g

[Bug middle-end/119717] New: ICE in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.cc:20339 due to counted_by attribute

2025-04-10 Thread qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119717 Bug ID: 119717 Summary: ICE in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.cc:20339 due to counted_by attribute Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/119717] ICE in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.cc:20339 due to counted_by attribute

2025-04-14 Thread qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119717 --- Comment #1 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- the reason for the ICE is: in C FE, there is a C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPR that is generated for converting the parameter "x" to integer type before comparing with integer constant 0 as: arg

[Bug c/119717] ICE in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.cc:20339 due to counted_by attribute

2025-04-14 Thread qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119717 --- Comment #3 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to uecker from comment #2) > I guess you need to use c_fully_fold Yes. thanks for the hints. in c_fully_fold, it assumes: /* Operands of variable-length expressions (function calls

[Bug c/119717] ICE in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.cc:20339 due to counted_by attribute

2025-04-15 Thread qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119717 qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution

[Bug middle-end/119716] segmentation fault when Passing NULL pointer to _bdos with counted_by attribute

2025-04-10 Thread qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119716 --- Comment #3 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > This is invalid testcase. > E.g. replace return __builtin_dynamic_object_size (p, 1); with return 0; > and try both gcc -fsanitize=undefined -g -O0 o

<    1   2   3   4