Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chantry.xavier at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48319
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48319&action=edit
test case
Tested with gcc 9.1 9.2 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #2 from Xavier ---
Note that in our code, we are not even dereferencing the pointer, it's just
ps->s += len.
And since we always keep a pointer right after the array (p_end / s_end), won't
that be a source of problems for Warray-boun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #16 from Xavier ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #14)
> That said and codegen improvements aside, I think the submitted test case is
> sufficiently tricky that I don't see issuing a warning for it as a problem.
> All flow-b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #18 from Xavier ---
The lib has been recently opensourced so I can share it :
https://github.com/Intersec/lib-common/blob/master/src/core/str-stream.h
We have 100-200 usages of p_end/s_end/b_end so even if it's possible to patch
them
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47418
Xavier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chantry.xavier at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47418
--- Comment #3 from Xavier 2011-01-23
02:06:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 23084
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23084
simpler testcase
$ gcc -O3 -Wall -c small-test.c
small-test.c: In function 'main':
small-test.c:18:51: war
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chantry.xavier at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 44279
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44279&action=edit
test case with a block macro
Today at
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chantry.xavier at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 45953
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45953&action=edit
test case
I am testing gcc version 8.3.1 20190228
With "g
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chantry.xavier at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 45958
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45958&action=edit
reduced test case
I am using gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89689
--- Comment #2 from Xavier ---
Thanks for the quick answer and for the clear explanation !
I indeed thought about using an assert, I think we will go with the
__builtin_unreachable suggestion.
You motivated me to open a similar issue I found : 89
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chantry.xavier at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 45970
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45970&acti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89722
--- Comment #4 from Xavier ---
Arf I did not understand this was a const problem. Maybe the warning could be a
bit clearer ? :)
I confirm that it works fine with typeof(*(bits) + 0).
This code is in a header shared between C and C++, and actual
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89722
--- Comment #9 from Xavier ---
We are compiling with -std=gnu++98 so decltype is not available there.
And the "+ 0" trick does not seem to work correctly.
% cat toto.c
#include
int main(void) {
char data[128];
printf("%ju\n", sizeof(t
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chantry.xavier at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 45975
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45975&action=edit
test case
There are already many bugs about this one, but since I am not expe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89729
--- Comment #3 from Xavier ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation, it's much clearer now.
Wclass-memaccess does look sane.
script_data_t is apparently manipulated from both C and C++ code, which
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chantry.xavier at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
It's probably more a nonsense than a bug, and all compilers behave the same way
(from gcc 4.4 to 5.2 and clang too).
If a function definition has both weak and nor
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chantry.xavier at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 50746
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50746&action=edit
testcase
We have a bug in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100410
--- Comment #2 from Xavier ---
It looks like it's already fixed in 10.3 and 11.1 :
https://godbolt.org/z/W98edbPEx
Do you confirm the code is correct, and it was a bug of 10.1 and 10.2 only ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #21 from Xavier ---
The problem still happens with gcc 9.4.0 but it appears to be fixed with gcc
10.
19 matches
Mail list logo
