On 3/4/21 12:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 3/3/21 10:33 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/3/21 6:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
...
I see what you mean, thanks, but I can't think of a test case to
trigger a false negative due to the smaller offset. Any suggestions?
My only ideas involve undefined b
On 3/3/21 10:33 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/3/21 6:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
...
I see what you mean, thanks, but I can't think of a test case to
trigger a false negative due to the smaller offset. Any suggestions?
My only ideas involve undefined behavior, casting the address to a
pointe
On 3/3/21 6:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 3/2/21 7:11 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/1/21 6:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/24/21 5:35 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/23/21 6:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/23/21 2:52 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/23/21 11:02 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
[CC Jason
On 3/2/21 7:11 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 3/1/21 6:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/24/21 5:35 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/23/21 6:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/23/21 2:52 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/23/21 11:02 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
[CC Jason for any further comments/clarification]
On 3/1/21 6:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/24/21 5:35 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/23/21 6:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/23/21 2:52 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/23/21 11:02 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
[CC Jason for any further comments/clarification]
On 2/9/21 10:49 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/25/21 4:40 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
I think the underlying problem is the same. We're getting a size
that doesn't correspond to what's actually being accessed, and it
happens because of the virtual inheritance. In pr97595 Jason
suggested to use the dec
On 2/24/21 5:35 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/23/21 6:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/23/21 2:52 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/23/21 11:02 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
[CC Jason for any further comments/clarification]
On 2/9/21 10:49 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 4:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
O
On 2/25/21 6:47 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/23/21 2:52 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I don't see how the issue here depends on the artificiality of the vptr;
That's what I was trying to get at -- is DECL_ARTIFICIAL really a good
way to detect these kinds of cases. It sounds like it likely isn't, bu
On 2/23/21 2:52 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> I don't see how the issue here depends on the artificiality of the vptr;
That's what I was trying to get at -- is DECL_ARTIFICIAL really a good
way to detect these kinds of cases. It sounds like it likely isn't, but
it may also be the best we can do.
On 2/8/21 3:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> I think the underlying problem is the same. We're getting a size
> that doesn't correspond to what's actually being accessed, and it
> happens because of the virtual inheritance. In pr97595 Jason
> suggested to use the decl/type size inequality to ide
On 2/8/21 2:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 2/8/21 12:59 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/19/21 5:56 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> Similar to the problem reported for -Wstringop-overflow in pr98266
>>> and already fixed, -Warray-bounds is also susceptible to false
>>> positives in
On 2/23/21 6:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/23/21 2:52 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/23/21 11:02 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
[CC Jason for any further comments/clarification]
On 2/9/21 10:49 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 4:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On
On 2/23/21 2:52 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/23/21 11:02 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
[CC Jason for any further comments/clarification]
On 2/9/21 10:49 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 4:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/8
On 2/23/21 11:02 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
[CC Jason for any further comments/clarification]
On 2/9/21 10:49 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 4:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/8/21 2:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/2
[CC Jason for any further comments/clarification]
On 2/9/21 10:49 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 4:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/8/21 2:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 12:59 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 1/19/21
On 2/8/21 4:11 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 3:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/8/21 2:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 12:59 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 1/19/21 5:56 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
Similar to the problem reported for -Wstringop
On 2/8/21 3:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 2/8/21 3:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/8/21 2:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> On 2/8/21 12:59 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 1/19/21 5:56 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Similar to the problem reported for -Wstringop-overflow
On 2/8/21 3:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/8/21 2:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 12:59 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 1/19/21 5:56 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
Similar to the problem reported for -Wstringop-overflow in pr98266
and already fixed, -Warray-bounds is also susceptible to
On 2/8/21 2:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 2/8/21 12:59 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/19/21 5:56 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>> Similar to the problem reported for -Wstringop-overflow in pr98266
>>> and already fixed, -Warray-bounds is also susceptible to false
>>> positives in
On 2/8/21 12:59 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 1/19/21 5:56 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
Similar to the problem reported for -Wstringop-overflow in pr98266
and already fixed, -Warray-bounds is also susceptible to false
positives in assignments and copies involving virtual inheritance.
Becau
On 1/19/21 5:56 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Similar to the problem reported for -Wstringop-overflow in pr98266
> and already fixed, -Warray-bounds is also susceptible to false
> positives in assignments and copies involving virtual inheritance.
> Because the two warnings don't shar
Ping 2:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563894.html
On 1/29/21 10:22 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563894.html
On 1/19/21 5:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Similar to the problem reported for -Wstringop-overflow in pr98
Ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563894.html
On 1/19/21 5:56 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Similar to the problem reported for -Wstringop-overflow in pr98266
and already fixed, -Warray-bounds is also susceptible to false
positives in assignments and copies involving virtual
Similar to the problem reported for -Wstringop-overflow in pr98266
and already fixed, -Warray-bounds is also susceptible to false
positives in assignments and copies involving virtual inheritance.
Because the two warnings don't share code yet (hopefully in GCC 12)
the attached patch adds its own w
24 matches
Mail list logo
