NCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
! gcc-5.2.0/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c:5701:19: runtime error: member call on
null pointer of type &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
1) No explicit options, just the default ones, -S will suffice.
2) Sorry, I did not specify the target is x86-64, but I got the same with -m32
3) sub is not needed, the code should just be compiled to exhibi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Did you put the gcc_assert line in the source?
If you have not a sanitized version you will not see the null pointer
dereferencing
Anyway this is what you asked me: (please not the runtime error:
sanitizer m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I am having the same problem in 5.2.0:
/* must be compiled with -O[1] -funroll-loops -foptimize-sibling-calls
-finline-small-functions */
/* target x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu */
/* Fedora 21 */
/*gcc-5.2.0/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Just confirmed adding
printf("up=%li down=%li up-down=%li\n", up,down,up-down);
before line 2670.
Output is
up=123 down=-9223372036854775808 up-down=-9223372036854775685
You could probably get an ICE with
g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I confirm the patch works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66942
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I should have written that I tried it not only on the test case I sent
but on the whole fortran
testsuite in gcc/testsuite.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I just found the same issue at line 2479:
dst_ctx->combine_with (ctx);
dst_ctx is again NULL
Maybe the same patch should be applied here? Namely:
if (!dst_ctx)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #8 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Created attachment 36052
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36052&action=edit
To be compiled with -O2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca ---
At line 2473 of ipa-prop.c I have
if (!ctx.useless_p ())
I changed it into
if (!ctx.useless_p () || !dst_ctx)
Now the sanitizer runtime error message disappears.
I am attaching another source, gccerr20-b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #11 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I have a version of gcc 5.2.0 compiled with the -fsanitize=undefined option.
This sanitized version gave me a runtime error due to dereferencing
the pointer dst_ctx
which was NULL. After the change I sugges
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65828
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66896
--- Comment #13 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I see only two NULL dereferencing in ipa-prop.c my lines 2479 and 2545
same statement
dst_ctx->combine_with (ctx);
Did you take care of both of them?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44348
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca ---
No, it is not valid, but gfortran should signal this with an error message.
Not with a crash.
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/* gcc -fsanitize=undefined issues spurious error message */
/* OK without sanitizer */
/* Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu */
void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67279
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
UB = undefined behaviour?
Why then it is only signaled if "static" attribute is requested?
This is accepted:"int dec_1 = 1 << 31;"
Isn't UB as well if it is not static?
I believe gcc should deliver a warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67279
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca ---
The following code has UB at lines 4 and 5 but compiles with
-fsanitize=undefined
int main()
{
int test[1],t;
t=test[1];
return test[1];
}
Its execution it delivers four runtime errors from the sanitizer an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67279
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca ---
On my side it has to do with the C standard.
Compilation with -ansi or -std=c90 is successful.
Compilation with -std=c99 fails.
Compiling with g++ is OK.
The behaviour I would like to see is a warning at co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca ---
A shorter source file displaying the same bug:
// from pr42049.c
// gcc -funroll-loops -O
// ../../gcc-5.2.0/gcc/loop-iv.c:2670:14: runtime error:
// signed integer overflow: 7 - -9223372036854775808 canno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61657
--- Comment #8 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Maybe the easiest way to reproduce the issue is as in the following;
gdb ~/local/gcc-5.2.0-sanitized/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/5.2.0/cc1
GNU gdb (GDB) Fedora 7.8.2-39.fc21
Copyright (C) 2014 Free
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61943
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426
Bug 63426 depends on bug 61943, which changed state.
Bug 61943 Summary: tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c:4148 signed integer overflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61943
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64327
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I "fixed" this one by substituting rtlanal.c:4907
if (bitwidth > HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT )
with
if (bitwidth > HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT || !bitwidth)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64920
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66827
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50184
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62058
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still there in GCC 5.2.0
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Running a sanitized version of gcc 5.2.0 I get the following:
// ../../gcc-5.2.0/gcc/fold-const.c:16036:8: runtime error: negation of
-2147483648 cannot be represented in
: testsuite
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Running struct-layout-1_generate.c the sanitized version of gcc finds two
undefined statements:
At line 1081
m &= (1ULL << e->len) - 1;
I get
/home/vitti/
ity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: libgcc
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
In libgcc2.c:1842
int m;
unsigned int n = m < 0 ? -m : m;
when m==-2147483648
I get the following message from
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
//g++ 5.2.0 sanitizer detects dereferencing a NULL pointer
//gcc-5.2.0/gcc/tree-cfg.c:1342:38: runtime error: member access within null
pointer of type 'struct basic_block_def&#x
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/*sanitizer message*/
/*gcc-5.2.0/gcc/c/c-typeck.c:8266:42: runtime error: load of address
0x7ffc8682b570 with insufficient space for an object of type 'long int'*/
/*gcc-5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50069
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still on gfortran 5.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50537
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50539
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50555
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54070
--- Comment #17 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I found it fixed in 5.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50555
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Sorry, you are right, the compiler should emit an error message
instead it wrongly
accepts the code. I was confused, this time the right behaviour is to
emit an error message.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50406
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
! gfortran produces weird ld message undefined reference to `___MOD_str'
module m
contains
function fun(i)
character(2), PARAMETER:: str(1) = (/'SD'/)
character(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
--- Comment #19 from Vittorio Zecca ---
ICE still there in 5.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50541
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Bug still there in 5.2.0
--- Comment #2 from zeccav at gmail dot com 2010-07-25 22:14 ---
Subject: Re: array function not fully defined
The undefined elements of test are accessed at instruction "a =
test(6, 5) - a" however. It is just that the code probably violates
any Fortran standard. If the te
n: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44343
MED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44345
duct: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gc
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44348
: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44349
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44351
oduct: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://g
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
ion: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44354
--- Comment #2 from zeccav at gmail dot com 2010-05-31 18:37 ---
Subject: Re: ICE in fold_convert_loc
In that case gfortran should emit an error message, but it should not crash.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44345
--- Comment #9 from zeccav at gmail dot com 2010-05-31 21:37 ---
Subject: Re: incorrect output at run time
In my example 'i' is local to the array constructor, while 'I' is
global and is initialized with value 5, so that the statement should
display '1 2 3 4 5
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44360
rsion: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44395
: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44791
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44792
--- Comment #2 from zeccav at gmail dot com 2010-07-03 09:15 ---
Subject: Re: data.f90 accesses undefined variable
I believe it should be
+ if (any(tmp2(1)%t1(1)%a(1:3:2) .ne. (/111,113/))) call abort
or (1:4:2)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44792
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44797
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44798
same kind
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64
--- Comment #5 from zeccav at gmail dot com 2010-07-08 14:49 ---
Subject: Re: INQUIRE EXIST variable must be default
LOGICAL
By the way, the NUMBER variable must be default INTEGER as well.
Do you agree there is the same problem as with the EXIST variable?
Vittorio
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44873
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44922
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: testsuite
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: zeccav at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50069
Bug #: 50069
Summary: FORALL fails on a character array
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50070
Bug #: 50070
Summary: Segmentation fault at size_binop_loc in fold-const.c
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50071
Bug #: 50071
Summary: gfortran does not distinguish labels in different type
scoping units
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRME
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50072
Bug #: 50072
Summary: gfortran must not accept same name for external and
common
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50073
Bug #: 50073
Summary: gfortran must not accept function name when result
name is present
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61910
--- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still there in gcc 7.0 trunk 239276
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61907
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.1 |7.0
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61908
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.1 |7.0
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.8.0 |7.0
--- Comment #26 from Vittorio Zecca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74265
--- Comment #1 from Vittorio Zecca ---
The following is a shorter reproducer:
struct B {
__CHAR32_TYPE__ S[6];
} d[] = { { { U"foo" } }, [0].S[2] = U'x' };
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: java
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
While generating 7.0 trunk with sanitized java I get the following
in mark.c:1468
"q = *p;"
libtool: link: /home
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
While compiling firefox version 48 with the trunk gcc 7.0 I get the following
segmentation violation
tree.h:3022 is "if (TREE_CODE (__t) !
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75860
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca ---
The preprocessed source is too big to be meaningful.
I did try to shorten it but still too big and using so many firefox
header files.
It will be faster if you could download the firefox-48 source and try it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75860
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Created attachment 39369
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39369&action=edit
xz-ipped reproducer
This is the xzipped test case that is my reproducer for this issue.
There are many compila
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75860
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Created attachment 39410
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39410&action=edit
xz-ipped original firefox source file
Original firefox source file in xz format.
This one is error free except
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75860
--- Comment #8 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Compiling the big test case, 231025 lines, with trunk level 239276 of August
9th
g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/vitti/1tb/vitti/local/gcc-7-239276/libexec/gcc/x86_64-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=75860
--- Comment #11 from Vittorio Zecca ---
I applied the fix from bug 72849 and the ICE disappeared.
Many thanks for pointing me to the right place!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67485
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|5.2.0 |7.0
--- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca
ponent: libgcc
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
While compiling gcc itself, the sanitizer complains as follows:
gcc-trunk-239276/libgcc/config/i386/cpuinfo.c:346:17: runtime error: left shift
of 1 by 31 places can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67482
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67496
--- Comment #11 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Still in trunk 7.0
gcc-trunk-239276/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c:2243:27: runtime error: load of
value 48, which is not a valid value for type 'bool'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67496
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|5.2.0 |7.0
Severity|normal
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Compiling the following:
subroutine foo(a)
type myT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77327
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca ---
The reproducer I proposed comes from testcase gfortran.dg/import4.f90
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77327
--- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca ---
The test case you propose, dec_structure_13.f90, does not trigger the asan
memory checker.
As I wrote before, the test case gfortran.dg/import4.f90 does trigger
the asan memory checker.
In your test case I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77327
--- Comment #6 from Vittorio Zecca ---
After applying the proposed patch the asan memory checker did not report
any memory fault, in particular the heap-use-after-free in interface.c
Fritz, do you have a -fsanitize=address version of gfortran, i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69604
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67737
--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Zecca ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> (In reply to Vittorio Zecca from comment #7)
> > With gcc 6.1.0, maybe a shorter reproducer
> > /* gcc -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx p.c */
>
> That is a differe
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
/* gcc -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx */
int main ()
{
int size = 10;
typedef struct
{
char val[size];
} block;
block b;
block
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77327
--- Comment #8 from Vittorio Zecca ---
Yes, it seems to me that import4.f90 is sufficient to trigger the asan
memory checker.
How strange, even without "implicit none" the loader should have complained
that "sub2" was referenced but undefined. T
Priority: P3
Component: d
Assignee: ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org
Reporter: zeccav at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
The address sanitizer detects the following running
/home/vitti/gcc-150221-full-address/gcc/gdc
-B/home/vitti/gcc-150221-full-address/gcc compilable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99337
--- Comment #1 from Vittorio Zecca ---
This issue was found with the address sanitizer, while issues in bug
63426 were found with the undefined behavior sanitizer.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52622
Vittorio Zecca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment
401 - 500 of 564 matches
Mail list logo
