On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 12:44 PM NightStrike <nightstr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 1:47 PM David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > From: Tim Lange <m...@tim-lange.me> > > > > This patch adds the reproducers reported in PR 110014 as test cases. The > > false positives in those cases are already fixed with PR 109577. > > > > 2023-06-09 Tim Lange <m...@tim-lange.me> > > > > PR analyzer/110014 > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > > > * gcc.dg/analyzer/realloc-pr110014.c: New tests. > > > > <snip> > > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/realloc-pr110014.c > b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/realloc-pr110014.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index 00000000000..d76b8781413 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/realloc-pr110014.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ > > +void *realloc (void *, unsigned long) > > + __attribute__((__nothrow__, __leaf__)) > > + __attribute__((__warn_unused_result__)) __attribute__((__alloc_size__ > (2))); > > This change missed my comment about the wrong type for realloc from > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110014#c3 > > Can you please fix this on all branches? > ping
