https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105351
--- Comment #2 from Gawain Bolton ---
Yes I believe this is a bug and strangely enough clang also seems to have this
issue.
>From the draft C++20 standard concerning "simple requirements" (cf.
https://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4860.pdf page 109)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105357
Bug ID: 105357
Summary: dereferenced ptr on param stack gets over written
Product: gcc
Version: 9.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105357
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
scanf("%s", town_name);
Can be problematic.
Especially with just size of 6.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105357
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105338
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1ceddd7497e15d262ead6f673f8f5ce79dd63714
commit r12-8233-g1ceddd7497e15d262ead6f673f8f5ce79dd63714
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105357
--- Comment #3 from vwebber ---
Thank you for the comments.
However, the data being overwritten is on the stack in a function which is
called after the problematic scanf() etc are are run.
I would suggest running up GDB and do a break on acce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105357
--- Comment #4 from vwebber ---
BTW, what happens in the rare occurrence of a bug report being found valid.
Regards,
Victor Webber
V&T: 408-221-8467
V: 805-924-1953
vweb...@msn.com
-Original Message-
From: Victor Webber
Sen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102342
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gaius at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105358
Bug ID: 105358
Summary: [12 Regression] scan* fails on targets without aligned
memory allocators.
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101391
Gaius Mulley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104118
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105351
ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ensadc at mailnesia dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105359
Bug ID: 105359
Summary: _Float128 expanders and builtins disabled on ppc
targets with 64-bit long double
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105267
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva ---
HaoChen Gui posted a proposal for a narrower pattern here
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-April/593389.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105360
Bug ID: 105360
Summary: Inlined lazy parameters / delegate literals, still
emitted
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105360
--- Comment #1 from Witold Baryluk ---
https://godbolt.org/z/c8oT6E4cf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105361
Bug ID: 105361
Summary: Incorrect end-of-file condition for derived-type I/O
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105336
--- Comment #3 from Avi Kivity ---
I have a multi-gigabyte reproducer. Unfortunately it's part of a huge program
that didn't build with gcc until very recently. It will be quite a task to
reduce it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I actually had tested that:
$ make check-gcc-c
RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m64,-m32,-m32/-mpowerpc64}{-mcpu=power7,-mcpu=power8,-mcpu=power9,-mcpu=power10}'
powerpc.exp=bswap-br*"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105335
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-04-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94157
--- Comment #11 from jiawei ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> Seems you are using the latest binutils ld, right?
>
> It's the newly added warning which tells that usage of executable stack is a
> potential security issue:
> https
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90181
--- Comment #13 from Elliott M ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> Actually this is NOT a gross mischaracterization of GCC's x86 inline-asm and
Making the 6 registers most likely to be needed on x86 available as
machine-specific co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105354
Hongtao.liu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105354
--- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu ---
(In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #1)
> Yes, and I think it's only available for simd128u8, not for
> simd128u16/u32/u64.
No, under sse2 the optimization is also availble for simd128u16, directly
generate
24 matches
Mail list logo
