http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50549
Bug #: 50549
Summary: should detect different type parameters in structure
constructors (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50550
Bug #: 50550
Summary: does not recognize pointer variable at initialization
(r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50551
Bug #: 50551
Summary: Argumentless NULL() cannot be used with assumed-length
dummy (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50552
Bug #: 50552
Summary: type name cannot be statement function dummy argument
(r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50553
Bug #: 50553
Summary: statement function cannot be target (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50554
Bug #: 50554
Summary: INQUIRE cannot redefine DO index(r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50555
Bug #: 50555
Summary: synonymous namelist/statement function dummy argument
not allowed (r178939)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50556
Bug #: 50556
Summary: cannot save namelist group name
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-09-28
09:20:40 UTC ---
I meant checking static expressions at compilation time, as in my example.
This has no cost at run time.
You proposed a run time check that still should be done if requested with a
ki
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50514
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-09-29
06:58:24 UTC ---
About run time checking: I believe the bit size of k is known at compile time,
and the overhead to check n against it is negligible as compared to computing
ishft itself and maybe n.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50552
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-10-18
13:55:31 UTC ---
I am traveling in Korea, and I cannot look at the standard now.
If you believe this is a non-issue then please close it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58226
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I could not reproduce the issue with version 4.8.2 20130920, probably
it has silently been
fixed sometime in the past.
Maybe this issue should be closed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58813
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I did not know about MALLOC_PERTURB_ I just put in my .bashrc profile
export MALLOC_PERTURB_=$(($RANDOM % 255 + 1))
gfortran fails in different places if the input file is .f or .f90
As .f I get bus error a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58813
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I found that
export MALLOC_PERTURB_=256
produces a quiet NaN. I'll use this one in my .bashrc
It seems to me that the earlier symptom of malfunctioning
is in symbol.c:5001 " dummies = sym->formal;" where sym
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58813
--- Comment #8 from Vittorio Zecca ---
If I use the option -fmax-errors=1 the ICE disappears, but using this
option as a default
would potentially increase the time needed to get an error free code.
A code containing many errors would require as m
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
! gfortran produces SIGSEV at run time for access to unassociated
allocatable/pointer arrays
! questionable bounds for unassociated allocatable/pointer arrays
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59065
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
g95: complains about deallocated array passed to LBOUND
Intel ifort:
1 0 0
1 0 0
1 0 0
1 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59065
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I do not think SIZE should be used to detect an undefined array
pointer, but a size of zero
warns the code that the array is mostly unusable and that perhaps
something is wrong,
while a nonzero size is tellin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59065
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I believe most times a code knows if and when the size of an array
must be nonzero,
so a zerosize array would raise suspicions in those cases.
Anyway in my opinion gfortran run time should detect when an
unal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59065
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Unfortunately associated() does not allow unassociated array pointers as input
so your code works for allocatable arrays but not for array pointers.
Yes, a negative value for size() is good. It is a pity ther
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Testsuite program allocate_deferred_char_scalar_1.f03 at lines 68 and 69
dereferences pointer str4 which was nullified at line 66.
Same
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
! incorrect output with optimization /= 0
! on trunk 259205
real efg_pw(2,2)
efg_pw(1,1)=1
efg_pw(2,1)=2
efg_pw(1,2)=3
efg_pw(2,2)=4
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
! Runtime error message on good Fortran
! gfortran -O -g -fcheck=bounds
! must be compiled
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85253
--- Comment #8 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Compiling and running under both 8.0.1 and 8.1.0
with MALLOC_CHECK_=1 (see man mallopt)
I get the following (notice "free(): invalid pointer" from mallopt)
/usr/bin/gfortran -g -O0 gfbug144.f
[vitti f95]$
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
// Signed integer overflow in sanitized version of gcc trunk 260152
// Taken from testcase pr82596.c
// Must
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Created attachment 44141
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44141&acti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85814
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I confirm I get the ICE on trunk 260152 and on a sanitized version I also get
../../gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c:721:11: runtime error: member access
within null pointer of type 'struct strinfo'
Thank you for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80657
--- Comment #10 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Just applied the fix: gfortran delivers an error message and exits. In
10 milliseconds!
Thank you for fixing this one.
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
! trunk 260152 ICE in gfc_conv_structure Segmentation fault at
trans-expr.c:7810
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 46670
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46670&action=edit
Test ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68045
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
On my test case the ICE disappeared and I am now having:
gfortran -S gfbug111.f
gfbug111.f:13:6:
13 | function abc_interface(this)
| 1
Error: ABSTRACT INTERFACE ‘abc_interface’ at (1) m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81983
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I am traveling abroad now, sorry I cannot help.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87703
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85164
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87042
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85789
--- Comment #1 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I confirm it is still in trunk 270309, must be compiled with
nonzero optimization
~/local/gcc-270309-undefined/bin/gcc -S -O gccerr67.c
../../gcc/gcc/cse.c:2215:34: runtime error: signed integer overflow:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85164
--- Comment #11 from Vittorio Zecca ---
After applying your fixes I still have overflow compiling the following
// Must be compiled with nonzero optimization
//../../gcc/gcc/poly-int.h:1095:5: runtime error: signed integer
overflow: 922337203685
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85164
--- Comment #12 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Here are two more test cases with undefined behaviour in poly-int.h
Must be compiled with nonzero optimization
cat gccerr73.c
// must be compiled with nonzero optimization
// ../../gcc/gcc/poly-int.h:753:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85164
--- Comment #16 from Vittorio Zecca ---
On Saturday afternoon I had a power failure that probably damaged my disk,
so I cannot help you now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90242
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89504
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
Priority: P3
Component: libfortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
! Intrinsic acosh violates 2008 Standard rule 13.7.5 line 5
! "If the result is complex the imaginary part is expressed in radians and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70870
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
After applying the fix in comment 3 to trunk 258946 the ICE disappears
and an error message appears, as it should be.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61907
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 61907, which changed state.
Bug 61907 Summary: load of invalid value for 'bool' in trans-array.c
trans_array_constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61907
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 61910, which changed state.
Bug 61910 Summary: undefined computation in trans-expr.c gfc_conv_cst_int_power
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61910
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61910
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50541
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Bug still there in 7.3.0 and trunk 258946.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50550
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Bug still present in 7.3.0 and trunk 258946.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50550
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Sorry about that, long time I did not blush, I'll try to remember the lesson.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64327
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Sorry for the delay in answering but I was traveling.
I cannot reproduce on version 7, while it reproduces on 6.4.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64920
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Sorry for late answer, but I was traveling.
I did not see it any longer.
: libfortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
! In trunk 258946 asan detects heap buffer overflow in
libgfortran/generated/matmul_r4.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85253
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
After applying the fix in comment #3 the asan message disappeared.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85253
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
You are welcome, very fast fix, keep up the good work!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49630
--- Comment #11 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I am still having an ICE with gfortran 5.3.0 on the following
module abc
implicit none
type,abstract::abc_abstract
contains
procedure(abc_interface),deferred::abc_function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50402
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
ICE on gfortran 5.3.0
gfortran should never have an ICE, even on invalid code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
--- Comment #21 from Vittorio Zecca ---
ICE still in 5.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50392
--- Comment #8 from Vittorio Zecca ---
ICE still in 5.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50536
--- Comment #8 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in 5.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67494
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Any update on this issue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44265
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in 5.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50069
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in 5.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67497
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in gfortran 5.3.0
/home/vitti/gcc-5.3.0/gcc/fortran/data.c:191:32: runtime error: null
pointer passed as argument 2, which is declared to never be null
data.c:191 "memcpy (&dest[start], rvalue->value
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67498
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in gfortran 5.3.0
/home/vitti/gcc-5.3.0/gcc/fortran/interface.c:2707:33: runtime error:
load of value 1818451807, which is not a valid value for type 'expr_t'
interface.c:2707 "&& f->sym->ts.u.cl->le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67484
--- Comment #14 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I still get it in g++ 5.3.0
You may reproduce this one with a version of g++ compiled with
-fsanitize=address
[vitti cc]$/home/vitti/1tb/vitti/local/gcc-5.3.0-address/bin/g++ gccerr26.C -S
===
: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
! gfortran 6.1.0 Segmentation fault in gfc_assign_data_value
type t
integer :: g=0 ! default initialization
end type
type(t) :: v2
data v2/t
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
c++ fails to compile some mozilla firefox version 42 cc files
c++ 5.3.0 compiles fine
firefox configured with
../configure --disable-gconf
then run
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/* gcc -fsanitize=undefined -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx */
void f(char *a, int *b)
{
*b = *a;
}
/*
* p.c:5:1: internal compiler error
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/* gcc -fsanitize=undefined */
int foo (int n, int k)
{
struct S
{
int i[n];
int value;
} s[2];
return s[k].value = 0;
}
int
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/* gcc -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx */
void f (char *s1, char *s2)
{
int z = 5;
struct { char a[z]; } x;
s1[0] = s2[0];
foo (x, x
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/* gcc -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx */
int foo(int);
typedef struct {
double d;
int a;
} str_t;
void bar(double d, int i, str_t s)
{
d = ((double (*) (int)) foo) (i);
}
/*p.c: In function ‘bar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67737
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/* gcc -fsanitize=undefined */
void * sbrk ()
{
volatile register __attribute__ ((__spu_vector__)) unsigned int sp_r1 __asm__
("1");
__builtin_spu_extract
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67496
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Just back from my travels.
Sorry, I get the same warning on 6.1.0:
/home/vitti/1tb/vitti/gcc-6.1.0-undefined/gcc/f951 -quiet gfbug121.f
../../gcc-6.1.0/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c:2234:27: runtime error: loa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67497
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
And in 6.1.0
../../gcc-6.1.0/gcc/fortran/data.c:191:32: runtime error: null pointer passed
as argument 2, which is declared to never be null
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67498
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in gfortran 6.1.0
../../gcc-6.1.0/gcc/fortran/interface.c:2738:33: runtime error: load of value
1818451807, which is not a valid value for type 'expr_t'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
--- Comment #22 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Same ICE in 6.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278
--- Comment #11 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Same ICE in 6.1.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67496
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Yes, I did test your patch, but nothing changed.
I understand you tried to generate a sanitized version of f951 but the
process failed.
I did the following (approximately):
CFLAGS="-fsanitize=undefined -Og
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64327
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
On 6.1.0 I applied the same patch I suggested on comment 6,
this time at line 5187,
and the runtime error disappeared.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67485
--- Comment #1 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in 6.1.0 at line 3162 of expmed.c
"val_so_far -= (HOST_WIDE_INT) 1 << log;"
../../gcc-6.1.0/gcc/expmed.c:3162:42: runtime error: signed integer overflow:
-9223372036854775808 - 1 cannot be represente
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69412
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69412
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
A reproducer for the parser.c runtime error
/* gcc-6.1.0-undefined/bin/g++ -I../../gcc-6.1.0/gcc/.
-I../../gcc-6.1.0/gcc/../include -I../../gcc-6.1.0/gcc/../libcpp/include p.c
-S -I. */
/* ../../gcc-6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67496
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I understand that you are still seeing a message like this
../../gcc-6.1.0/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c:2233:27: runtime error: load
of value 176, which is not a valid value for type 'bool'
right?
If yes, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67496
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca ---
My C is not better than yours, but length_from_typespec might have
been incorrectly
initialized elsewhere, otherwise it is a false positive.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278
--- Comment #13 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I think that 1 << 31 is undefined because "1" is assumed (signed) int.
Maybe it should be 1u << 31 ?
Anyway on 6.1.0 I have no runtime error message.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69412
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Bug in comment 4 still in gcc 7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67482
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I confirm I cannot reproduce it on 6.1.0 nor 7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67482
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Running the sanitized version of gcc against the testsuite I got no
runtime error in dwarf2out.c
So I believe this issue can be closed as FIXED.
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
! -fsanitize=address -O0 catches out of bounds access on assumed size array
! any other optimization level, even -Og
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71027
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Yes, you are right, and probably in real programs the subroutine would
not be optimized away.
Thank you for the explanation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67483
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Yes I confirm it is in trunk:
../../gcc7/gcc/combine.c:7727:40: runtime error: shift exponent -1 is negative
combine.c:7727 is "& unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) 1 << count)) - 1)) == 0"
count==-1 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70877
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I confirm fixed in 6.1.0 and trunk.
Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70876
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Will you please check gcc 6.1 with your fix against bug 70877?
I get an ICE, could it be a regression?
gcc -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx gccerr36.c
gccerr36.c: In function ‘bar’:
gccerr36.c:12:8: warning:
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/* gcc -O2 sanitizer undefined runtime error */
/* In gcc trunk 7.0 */
/* ../../gcc7/gcc/combine.c:12340:18: runtime error: left
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71074
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67497
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in trunk:
../../gcc7/gcc/fortran/data.c:191:32: runtime error: null pointer passed as
argument 2, which is declared to never be null
here:
memcpy (&dest[start], rvalue->value.character.string, len *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70722
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Yes, this fixed my problem with mozilla firefox compilation,
Thank you!
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Compiling the following with
g++ -fsanitize=address
int main()
{
int offset=1;
char buf[offset]="";
}
I get the following:
p.C:5:1: internal compiler error: in tree_t
101 - 200 of 564 matches
Mail list logo
