[Bug c/117866] Confusing 'expected ... but argument is of type ...' (same type repeated)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117866 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[15 regression] Confusing |Confusing 'expected ... but

[Bug c/118325] New: ICE with nested function and non-local jump

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118325 Bug ID: 118325 Summary: ICE with nested function and non-local jump Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c/118095] nonstring attribute cannot be applied to array of char arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118095 --- Comment #5 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- I am not sure Martin S still reads these emails. I also do not understand the code fully, but you could try something like this: /* Use the SSA_NAME_VAR that was determined above to see if it's

[Bug c/118095] nonstring attribute cannot be applied to array of char arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118095 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug c/117866] [15 regression] Confusing 'expected ... but argument is of type ...' (same type repeated)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117866 --- Comment #6 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 59852 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59852&action=edit patch preliminary patch

[Bug c/117652] [14/15 regression] ICE: tree check: expected class ‘type’, have ‘exceptional’ (error_mark) in tagged_types_tu_compatible_p, at c/c-typeck.cc:1919

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117652 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug c/113688] [14] verify_type fails for compatible structs with FAM in C23, builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c and gnu23-tag-1.c with -g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113688 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[14/15 Regression] |[14] verify_type fails for

[Bug c/114713] incorrect TBAA for struct with flexible array member or GNU zero size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114713 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from

[Bug c/117724] [15 regression] ICE when building libgit2 (error: ‘TYPE_CANONICAL’ is not compatible)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117724 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c/115424] 'auto' type inference not working when struct declared in rhs, even when the final type is not anonymous

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115424 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug c/116194] enhancement: attribute to protect tagged unions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116194 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c/112840] feature request: warn on incorrect tagged union value access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112840 --- Comment #4 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- *** Bug 116194 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c/117866] [15 regression] Confusing 'expected ... but argument is of type ...' (same type repeated)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117866 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug c/117806] [14 Regression] ICE: in composite_type_internal with C23 tag compatibility and packed/aligned attribute on a field (defined 3 times)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117806 --- Comment #6 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Fixed on trunk.

[Bug c/117828] [15 Regression] -g and error: ‘TYPE_CANONICAL’ is not compatible since r15-5470

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117828 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c/117828] [15 Regression] -g and error: ‘TYPE_CANONICAL’ is not compatible since r15-5470

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117828 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #4 from ue

[Bug c/117828] [15 Regression] -g and error: ‘TYPE_CANONICAL’ is not compatible since r15-5470

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117828 --- Comment #3 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- A check is needed in tagged_tu_types_compatible_p. In C23 the following needs to be rejected: struct foo { struct { int Reserved : 32; } }; struct foo { struct { int Reserved;

[Bug c/117810] Feature request: attribute access but for (start, end) type interfaces

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117810 --- Comment #3 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Not sure what this has to do with constexpr, but allowing expressions should be possible. WG21 is working on contracts to specify pre-. and postprocessing, but I am not sure advanced this is. I

[Bug c/117178] -Wunterminated-string-initialization should ignore trailing NUL byte for nonstring char arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117178 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug c/117810] Feature request: attribute access but for (start, end) type interfaces

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117810 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFI

[Bug c/117724] [15 regression] ICE when building libgit2 (error: ‘TYPE_CANONICAL’ is not compatible)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117724 --- Comment #6 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- PATCH: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/669873.html

[Bug c/117724] [15 regression] ICE when building libgit2 (error: ‘TYPE_CANONICAL’ is not compatible)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117724 --- Comment #5 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Preliminary patch (but does not cover all similar cases): diff --git a/gcc/tree.cc b/gcc/tree.cc index 1da06c7d4e9..453b56cc37c 100644 --- a/gcc/tree.cc +++ b/gcc/tree.cc @@ -13977,6 +13977,9 @@

[Bug c/115109] Incorrect type of enumeration constant in redeclaration of enumeration constant (C23)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115109 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c/117724] [15 regression] ICE when building libgit2 (error: ‘TYPE_CANONICAL’ is not compatible)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117724 --- Comment #4 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- This seems to be the same underlying issue with FAMs now exposed by the fix to PR117490.

[Bug c/117719] New: Wdangling-pointer false positive for store to heap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117719 Bug ID: 117719 Summary: Wdangling-pointer false positive for store to heap Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug c/117490] Invalid TBAA for structures without tag and compatible definition in C.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117490 --- Comment #11 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Fixed on trunk and for C23 only.

[Bug c/117059] Enhancement: Make -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant available in C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117059 --- Comment #12 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- I filed PR117687 for the other cases.

[Bug c/117687] Wzero-as-nullpointer-constant should warn for zeros of type bool, enum, and _BitInt

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117687 --- Comment #1 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- As discussed in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117059#c10 the warning should be enhanced to cover these cases.

[Bug c/117687] New: Wzero-as-nullpointer-constant should warn for zeros of type bool, enum, and _BitInt

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117687 Bug ID: 117687 Summary: Wzero-as-nullpointer-constant should warn for zeros of type bool, enum, and _BitInt Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED S

[Bug testsuite/117419] test failures for enum-alias-{1,2,3} on arm-eabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117419 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASS

[Bug c/117490] Invalid TBAA for structures without tag and compatible definition in C.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117490 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-11-16 Statu

[Bug c/113688] [14/15 Regression] verify_type fails for compatible structs with FAM in C23, builtin-sprintf-warn-1.c and gnu23-tag-1.c with -g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113688 --- Comment #8 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Hm, although in this case ``` struct S{int x,y[1];}*a; int main(void){ struct S{int x,y[];} *b; // Add = a to get an error; } ``` the types are not compatible but we still run into this i

[Bug c/117548] [15 regression] ICE when redeclaring function with a compatible type involving C23 structure compatibility

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117548 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c/117548] [15 regression] ICE when redeclaring function with a compatible type involving C23 structure compatibility

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117548 --- Comment #3 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- PATCH: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/668998.html

[Bug c/115109] Incorrect type of enumeration constant in redeclaration of enumeration constant (C23)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115109 --- Comment #13 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Tests were fixed in PR115545

[Bug c/117548] ICE when redeclaring function with a compatible type involving C23 structure compatibility

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117548 --- Comment #2 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 59599 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59599&action=edit patch Tentative patch.

[Bug c/117548] ICE when redeclaring function with a compatible type involving C23 structure compatibility

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117548 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/117059] Enhancement: Make -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant available in C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117059 --- Comment #5 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- While I personally would like to have this warning in -Wall, and also want to see 0 as null pointer constant be deprecated, I think it is too early. At this time, it is not deprecated (I have a d

[Bug testsuite/117419] test failures for enum-alias-{1,2,3} on arm-eabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117419 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://linaro.atlassian.ne

[Bug c/117490] Invalid TBAA for structures without tag and compatible definition in C.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117490 --- Comment #8 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Some tests for pointers to struct w and w/o tag and also with one incomplete struct. https://godbolt.org/z/ePcoTTeMq #if 1 #define tag #endif int f2(void *x, void *y) { typedef struct tag { i

[Bug middle-end/108036] [12/13/14/15 Regression] Spurious warning for zero-sized array parameters to a function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108036 --- Comment #12 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- UBSan and Wstringop-overflow have completely separate implementations (I wish there was a more sysematic approach...).

[Bug c/117059] Enhancement: Make -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant available in C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117059 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #2 from ue

[Bug c/117059] Enhancement: Make -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant available in C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117059 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c/117391] wrong composite for unspecified sizes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117391 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c/117490] Invalid TBAA for structures without tag and compatible definition in C.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117490 --- Comment #7 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 59568 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59568&action=edit patch for pre-C23 Use C23 TYPE_CANONICAL logic also for earlier language modes. There a couple of

[Bug c/117490] Invalid TBAA for structures without tag and compatible definition in C.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117490 --- Comment #6 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 59567 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59567&action=edit patch for C23 Tentative patch to fix this for C23.

[Bug c/117490] Invalid TBAA for structures without tag and compatible definition in C.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117490 --- Comment #3 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Ah, your are right. The declared type rules makes it valid. I forgot about it because it is never explicitly used for anything, but here it makes a difference.

[Bug c/117490] Invalid TBAA for structures without tag and compatible definition in C.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117490 --- Comment #1 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- I believe the optimization is valid because what is relevant are the types used for the accesses in 'f2' so 's1' and 's2_alt' which are not compatible with each other. The type in the other TU is

[Bug testsuite/117419] test failures for enum-alias-{1,2,30 on arm-eabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117419 --- Comment #3 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- I sent a patch before but there is still something wrong: PATCH: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655473.html Discussion: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-July/

[Bug c/117391] wrong composite for unspecified sizes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117391 --- Comment #2 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- PATCH: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/667285.html

[Bug testsuite/117419] New: test failures for enum-alias-{1,2,30 on arm-eabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117419 Bug ID: 117419 Summary: test failures for enum-alias-{1,2,30 on arm-eabi Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug tree-optimization/115177] incorrect TBAA for derived types involving hardbool types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115177 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/115157] incorrect TBAA for derived types involving enum types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115157 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASS

[Bug testsuite/117419] test failures for enum-alias-{1,2,30 on arm-eabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117419 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |uecker at gcc dot gnu

[Bug c/117391] wrong composite for unspecified sizes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117391 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Assignee|unassig

[Bug c/117391] New: wrong composite for unspecified sizes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117391 Bug ID: 117391 Summary: wrong composite for unspecified sizes Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c/116728] c23 tag compatibility broken with pointers to incomplete types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116728 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |uecker at gcc dot gnu

[Bug c/114831] typeof doesn't evaluate expression when it has variably modified type in some cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114831 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c/116284] [12/13/14/15 Regression] incorrect classification of zero-sized array as variably modified

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116284 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug c/112716] LTO optimization with struct with variable size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112716 --- Comment #16 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15) > (In reply to uecker from comment #14) > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13) > > > (In reply to uecker from comment #11) > > > > > >

[Bug c/112716] LTO optimization with struct with variable size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112716 --- Comment #14 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13) > (In reply to uecker from comment #11) > > I asked the C FE and it wants to get this fixed. > > That was a funny comment? Yes sorry. > > But yes,

[Bug c/112716] LTO optimization with struct with variable size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112716 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c/100420] unspecified VLA bound formatted as [0] instead of [*] in -Wvla-parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100420 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug c/117145] [14/15 Regression] ICE: in make_ssa_name_fn, at tree-ssanames.cc:355 at -O1 and above with vector_size and VLA in struct argument since r14-1143-g42d1612eb5c3b2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117145 --- Comment #11 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- PATCH: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-October/666590.html

[Bug c/117145] [14/15 Regression] ICE: in make_ssa_name_fn, at tree-ssanames.cc:355 at -O1 and above with vector_size and VLA in struct argument since r14-1143-g42d1612eb5c3b2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117145 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #59404|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c/112716] LTO optimization with struct with variable size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112716 --- Comment #11 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- I asked the C FE and it wants to get this fixed.

[Bug c/117245] [13/14/15 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (error: definition in block 2 follows the use) with VLA types in struct with a vector type rebuild and nested functions since r13-6128-g4782

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117245 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug c/117145] [14/15 Regression] ICE: in make_ssa_name_fn, at tree-ssanames.cc:355 at -O1 and above with vector_size and VLA in struct argument since r14-1143-g42d1612eb5c3b2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117145 --- Comment #7 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 59404 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59404&action=edit patch Candidate patch for PR117145 and PR11745

[Bug c/113688] verify_type fails for compatible structs with FAM in C23

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113688 --- Comment #3 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- The issue is that struct with ISO C99 flexible array member and GNU zero-sized extension will have different mode but we may want to them to be compatible.

[Bug c/117145] [14/15 Regression] ICE: in make_ssa_name_fn, at tree-ssanames.cc:355 at -O1 and above with vector_size and VLA in struct argument since r14-1143-g42d1612eb5c3b2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117145 --- Comment #5 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- The underlying issue appears to be that we somehow do not recognize the struct as a variable modified type if it has the attribute. The change referenced above then does not handle size expressio

[Bug c/117145] [14/15 Regression] ICE: in make_ssa_name_fn, at tree-ssanames.cc:355 at -O1 and above with vector_size and VLA in struct argument since r14-1143-g42d1612eb5c3b2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117145 --- Comment #4 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- A bit nicer test: void b(); int e(int *c, struct d { [[gnu::vector_size(4)]] char an[*c]; } *) { (void)sizeof(struct d); return 0; } void f() { int a = 0; if (e(&a, 0)) b(); } htt

[Bug c/117164] ICE building gcc.dg/nested-func-12.c with -std=gnu23

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117164 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-checking --- Comment #4

[Bug c/117164] ICE building gcc.dg/nested-func-12.c with -std=gnu23

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117164 --- Comment #3 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Adding debug_tree for lhs and fntype in verify_gimple right before the "invalid conversion in gimple call" (should the debug_generic_stmt already give me this information somehow?)

[Bug c/117164] ICE building gcc.dg/nested-func-12.c with -std=gnu23

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117164 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-10-19 Statu

[Bug c/116193] enhancement: type attribute that causes overflow for unsigned integer types to trap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116193 --- Comment #3 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- It came up as a possibility in various discussions, including on the kernel mailing list or inside WG14. I personally use signed type if I want to detect overflow and unsigned only if I want m

[Bug c/116194] New: enhancement: attribute to protect tagged unions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116194 Bug ID: 116194 Summary: enhancement: attribute to protect tagged unions Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Com

[Bug c/116193] enhancement: type attribute that causes overflow for unsigned integer types to trap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116193 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug c/116193] New: enhancement: type attribute that causes overflow for unsigned integer types to trap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116193 Bug ID: 116193 Summary: enhancement: type attribute that causes overflow for unsigned integer types to trap Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED S

[Bug tree-optimization/109334] tree-object-size: Improve size computation in arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109334 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c/116016] enhancement: add __builtin_set_counted_by(P->FAM, COUNT) or equivalent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116016 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug c/116141] ICE with conditional operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116141 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c/116082] -Wunterminated-string-initialization should not warn about strings that end with "\0" but should warn still for -Wc++-compat

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116082 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug c/66425] (void) cast doesn't suppress __attribute__((warn_unused_result))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425 --- Comment #67 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Andrew Church from comment #66) > (In reply to Andrew Church from comment #65) > > As one of the advocates for this behavior, it stems (at least in my case) > > from pre-C23 code in w

[Bug c/66425] (void) cast doesn't suppress __attribute__((warn_unused_result))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c/114727] ICE with c23 with aligned attribute and -g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114727 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c/115109] Incorrect type of enumeration constant in redeclaration of enumeration constant (C23)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115109 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||15.0 --- Comment #12 from ue

[Bug c/115502] [15 regression] ICE when building Valgrind with -std=c23 (comptypes_same_p, at c/c-typeck.cc:1227) since r15-934-gd2cfe8a73b3c41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115502 --- Comment #10 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Can this be closed?

[Bug c/115696] [15 regression] ICE on invalid repeated mixed declarations (tree check: expected class ‘type’, have ‘exceptional’ (error_mark) in comptypes_verify, at c/c-typeck.cc:1178)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115696 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c/115185] Missing "too long" warning when string-array size doesn't include NULL byte

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115185 --- Comment #8 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #7) > (In reply to Konstantin Kharlamov from comment #5) > > So basically -Wc++-compat warns about every heap memory allocation, of which > > there are

[Bug c/115696] [15 regression] ICE on invalid repeated mixed declarations (tree check: expected class ‘type’, have ‘exceptional’ (error_mark) in comptypes_verify, at c/c-typeck.cc:1178)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115696 --- Comment #2 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- PATCH: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/656022.html

[Bug c/114727] ICE with c23 with aligned attribute and -g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114727 --- Comment #5 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #3) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > > Possibly type verification should be triggered from rest_of_type_compilation > > rather than from (only)

[Bug c/114727] ICE with c23 with aligned attribute and -g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114727 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug c/115696] [15 regression] ICE on invalid repeated mixed declarations (tree check: expected class ‘type’, have ‘exceptional’ (error_mark) in comptypes_verify, at c/c-typeck.cc:1178)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115696 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFI

[Bug c/115185] Missing "too long" warning when string-array size doesn't include NULL byte

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115185 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug testsuite/115545] [15 regression] missing/excess errors after r15-1394 for targets where sizeof(int)==sizeof(long)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115545 --- Comment #5 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- PATCH: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655470.html

[Bug tree-optimization/115157] incorrect TBAA for derived types involving enum types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115157 --- Comment #6 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- PATCH: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/655473.html

[Bug c/70930] VLAs in structs in loop headers are not evaluated each iteration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70930 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2016-05-04 00:00:00 |2024-6-24 CC|

[Bug c/115109] Incorrect type of enumeration constant in redeclaration of enumeration constant (C23)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115109 --- Comment #10 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Yeah, I looked at the CI before submitting and saw the three passing tests, not realizing that the fourth was stilling running. I will fix this soon.

[Bug testsuite/115545] [15 regression] missing/excess errors after r15-1394

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115545 uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c/115502] [15 regression] ICE when building Valgrind with -std=c23 (comptypes_same_p, at c/c-typeck.cc:1227) since r15-934-gd2cfe8a73b3c41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115502 --- Comment #5 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Ah right, thank you! This I where the front end checking was added. Makes sense now. So I think this is a dup of PR114930, but not detected by the FE.

  1   2   >