[Bug sanitizer/120970] New: -static-pie together with -fsanitize=address should be disallowed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120970 Bug ID: 120970 Summary: -static-pie together with -fsanitize=address should be disallowed Product: gcc Version: 15.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug analyzer/120915] Possible -fsanitize=pointer-subtract false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120915 --- Comment #3 from Cristian Morales Vega --- > But isn't it valid (seems like a common idiom in C++)? I'm not a qualified language lawyer. But looking at https://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2020/n4861.pdf, in "7.6.9 Relational

[Bug analyzer/120915] Possible -fsanitize=pointer-subtract false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120915 --- Comment #1 from Cristian Morales Vega --- The specific gcc version I was using is gcc-15.1.1-2.fc42.x86_64, from Fedora 42.

[Bug analyzer/120915] Possible -fsanitize=pointer-subtract false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120915 --- Comment #2 from Cristian Morales Vega --- I probably did a mistake before, because I couldn't reproduce it when simplifing it. The thing is actually just ``` #include class stream { char* p_; char* end_; public: stream(

[Bug analyzer/120915] New: Possible -fsanitize=pointer-subtract false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120915 Bug ID: 120915 Summary: Possible -fsanitize=pointer-subtract false positive Product: gcc Version: 15.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug tree-optimization/120445] False -Wstringop-overread and -Wfree-nonheap-object positives

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120445 --- Comment #2 from Cristian Morales Vega --- Created attachment 61523 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61523&action=edit Preprocessed source "g++ -E -O3 -flto -o test_preprocessed.cpp test.cpp -Iboost_1_88_0" output.

[Bug other/120445] New: False -Wstringop-overread and -Wfree-nonheap-object positives

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120445 Bug ID: 120445 Summary: False -Wstringop-overread and -Wfree-nonheap-object positives Product: gcc Version: 15.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/109703] New: __builtin_unreachable() reached

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109703 Bug ID: 109703 Summary: __builtin_unreachable() reached Product: gcc Version: 13.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++

[Bug libstdc++/105616] Using regex_replace throws "maybe-uninitialized" warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105616 --- Comment #2 from Cristian Morales Vega --- I don't think so. Supposedly it was fixed 2 months ago in trunk (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562#c14). But in https://godbolt.org/z/8a979Gha8 the warnings are still present (even

[Bug libstdc++/105671] [11/12/13 Regression] Unexplained "undefined reference" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105671 --- Comment #4 from Cristian Morales Vega --- I can confirm adding "__attribute__((always_inline))" in _M_high_mark() solves the issue.

[Bug c++/105671] Unexplained "undefined reference" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105671 --- Comment #1 from Cristian Morales Vega --- It's in the full verbose build log, but failed to include it here. These are the contents of the files: $ cat user-config.jam using gcc : : g++ : "-flto" ; $ cat test.cpp #include #include #inclu

[Bug c++/105671] New: Unexplained "undefined reference" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105671 Bug ID: 105671 Summary: Unexplained "undefined reference" error Product: gcc Version: 12.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug libstdc++/105616] New: Using regex_replace throws "maybe-uninitialized" warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105616 Bug ID: 105616 Summary: Using regex_replace throws "maybe-uninitialized" warnings Product: gcc Version: 12.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P