https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105264
--- Comment #9 from Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ---
Thanks a lot, I can confirm that this fixes the issue in builtin/merge-file.c
in git.git.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105285
--- Comment #2 from Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ---
This code also errors under -Werror=analyzer-too-complex, including in some
adjacent code, so perhaps the analyzer gave up?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105285
--- Comment #1 from Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ---
Created attachment 52814
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52814&action=edit
A patch to git.git that works around the -fanalyzer false positive
A fix to git.git to work around t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105285
Bug ID: 105285
Summary: False positive with -Wanalyzer-null-dereference in
git.git's reftable/reader.c
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87404
--- Comment #10 from Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ---
Thanks, just clarifying. I saw this one was in the C++ component unlike the
other one.
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 19:57 egallager at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> https://gcc.gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105273
--- Comment #2 from Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ---
...To finish the report (Bugzilla's eager submitting threw me for a loop) the
issue is that while the analyzer is right in the *general* case about a
"switch" with a missing "default" being somethi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105273
--- Comment #1 from Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ---
Created attachment 52808
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52808&action=edit
test case without an enum
A slightly amended test case, showing that the enum isn't per-se the issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105273
Bug ID: 105273
Summary: -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value warns on
"missing" default for switch when callers can be
statically determined
Product: gcc
Versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105264
--- Comment #4 from Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ---
Created attachment 52806
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52806&action=edit
testcase-full.c (gcc -E of testcase.c)
The gcc -E version of testcase.c, probably useless since it o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105264
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avarab at gmail dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105264
--- Comment #2 from Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ---
I think I can do one better. Here's a stand-alone reproducible test case
without any headers except standard headers, I've expanded the gcc -E version
of that too, but presumably you won't need it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87404
--- Comment #8 from Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ---
Eric: I filed bug 87983. I think it makes sense to mark it as a duplicate only
if this one covers both C and C++, right now the "component" for this one is
C++.
As bug 87983 notes in passing C does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105264
Bug ID: 105264
Summary: -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value gets confused
about var + i v.s. &var[i]
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87983
--- Comment #4 from Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> Is the expectation that this would come from -Wswitch, -Wswitch-enum,
> -Wenum-compare, -Wenum-conversion, or some new flag?
I think a new flag would b
14 matches
Mail list logo
