https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92696
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92700
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70196
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #4)
> ordering comparison of pointers is only well-defined when the two pointers
> point into the same object (including one-past-the-end). [expr.ref]/4
>
Right, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90647
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #0)
> Consider the example:
>
> auto test(int s) {
> return [&s] { return s; };
> }
>
>
> `s` is a local variable, so we return a lambda that has a dangling re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90647
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70196
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92652
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65656
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #9)
> See also bug 54021 for a similar problem report. That bug has been resolved
> and the test case submitted here also compiles and runs to completion with
> the sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64329
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||54367
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90647
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66955
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #4)
> Confirmed on all of Linux/x86_64 and Solaris/x86. Recategorizing: libcc1 has
> nothing to do with libgcc. There's no category for it and the MAINTAINERS
> file li
,
||easyhack
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Severity|normal |trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
David Malcolm's new static analyzer might solve some of these
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68230
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79543
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Chung-Lin Tang from comment #5)
> Author: cltang
> Date: Tue Sep 3 14:10:26 2019
> New Revision: 275341
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275341&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> 2019-09-03 Ch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92820
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
||patches/2019-11/msg02682.ht
||ml
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92826
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12955
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||geoffk at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29997
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92801
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92900
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79221
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #0)
> Similar to bug 79220, the -Wstringop-overflow option diagnoses the buffer
> overflow in the call to strcat in f() in the program below but fails to do
> the same f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68160
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
This might be material for David Malcolm's new static analyzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86464
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> EDG accepts it but Clang also rejects it:
>
> del.cc:5:11: error: member initializer 'foo' does not name a non-static data
> member or base class
> : f
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #6)
> Not a bug per comment #5
comment #5 said this is "probably a duplicate" so if closing this, I'd expect
it to be as a duplicate of whichever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91839
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92210
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92209
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92479
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||87403
Summary|missing warning
||2019-12-21
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Confirmed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93008
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93008
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2)
> > I would prefer this second approach.
>
> The downside of it is that it requires adding a keyword that the stan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21823
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86176
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> No, because GCC is not a static analyser.
It'll have one once David Malcolm's static analyzer branch is merged
|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed||2019-12-22
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
See Also||https://bugs.llvm.org/show_
||bug.cgi?id
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88518
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Matthew Wilcox from comment #2)
> Thanks! What I actually want to do is annotate g() to the effect that it
> reads the pointed-to variable before it writes it. IOW, I want to write
> something
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82179
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
> (In reply to Federico Bento from comment #1)
> >
> > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-09/msg00238.html
> > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-09/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88737
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Neal H. Walfield from comment #0)
> I would like an attribute to indicate that ownership of an argument is moved
> to the function. That is, any subsequent accesses to the variable should be
> c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90906
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #0)
> GCC doesn't diagnose returning a freed pointer as in the function below:
>
> void* f (void *p)
> {
> __builtin_free (p);
> // ...
> return p;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90806
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||84774
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47781
--- Comment #21 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Cj Welborn from comment #20)
> Has anything changed since 2017 that would let me use
> register_printf_specifier and -Wformat warnings at the same time?
Not that I know of; people still can't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26190
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
Does the new combine2 pass proposed for GCC 10 fix any of this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18395
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
Does the new combine2 pass proposed for GCC 10 address any of these issues?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53917
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2017-09-24 00:00:00 |2019-12-23
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gall
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Depends on||79872
Summary|Issues with displaying |[meta-bug] Issues with
|inlining chain for |displaying inlining chain
|middle-end warnings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91770
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
I wonder how hard it would be to get the interaction with -Wsystem-headers
right here, given how many other issues with -Wsystem-headers there are...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91777
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> It's also diagnosed by libstdc++ Debug Mode:
>
> /home/jwakely/gcc/10/include/c++/10.0.0/debug/safe_iterator.h:294:
> In function:
> __gnu_debug::_Safe_ite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55791
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
For reference, clang catches this with its static analyzer:
$ clang --analyze 55791.c
55791.c:10:15: warning: Result of 'malloc' is converted to a pointer of type
'char', which is incompatible with sizeof op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93109
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #30 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #29)
> Fixed for GCC 10.
I'm closing as such then (since I don't see any mentions of backports needed)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80331
Bug 80331 depends on bug 23383, which changed state.
Bug 23383 Summary: builtin array operator new is not marked with malloc
attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23383
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68687
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92830
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93392
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks||24639
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Possibly a dup of one of the many other bugs with -Wuninitialized; I don't have
time to check right now though...
Referenced Bugs:
https://gcc.gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93219
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92137
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Ariel Torti from comment #6)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> > > Those are intrinsics and most of them are documented in the Intel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #212 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #211)
> If new reports are going to be marked as duplicates of this, then can it
> please be moved from SUSPENDED status to REOPENED? The situation is far
> worse than wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92875
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--- Comment #213 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #212)
> (In reply to Rich Felker from comment #211)
> > If new reports are going to be marked as duplicates of this, then can it
> > please be moved from SUSPENDED stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93710
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #3)
> These systems are EOL so we can't expect any fixes to the systems themselves.
>
> The question is "is the latest imported as an version even supposed to
> support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
--- Comment #30 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #29)
> Fixed for 8.4+ and 9.3+ too.
As far as I can tell, the commits in question just silenced the main false
positives from that warning that people were complainin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80379
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93585
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68717
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Severity|normal |trivial
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=50909
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Severity|normal |trivial
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93910
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Roland Illig from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> > git blame for the change which added the diagnostics and git log for that
> > change should usually h
||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
||patches/2020-02/msg00889.ht
||ml
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #16 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93751
--- Comment #17 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #16)
> (In reply to Alexey Neyman from comment #14)
> > Created attachment 47930 [details]
> > Patch, v3
> >
> > In gcc-patches, there have been three votes for gener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53479
--- Comment #23 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #8)
>
> Perhaps I should add an entry to the FAQ summarizing the above (anyone feel
> free to beat me to it...)
The "Commonly-reported Non-bugs" page would be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82798
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71283
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37637
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35532
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26475
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67729
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87118
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
CC||coypu at sdf dot org,
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
There's a patch for this (or at least something similar) on the gcc-pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87951
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26732
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Now we don't even error out at -O3.
Why would the -O3 matter?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37703
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81811
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51509
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87951
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44313
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87241
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87292
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Another heuristic besides length chars would be that "string" is a typename and
"stdin" isn't. David?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84863
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Never use -Werror with -fsanitize=*, those really do cause new warnings
> because the code intentionally is less optimized and the runtime check
> themselves prev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
> (In reply to René J.V. Bertin from comment #4)
> > Any news on this front?
>
> Last I heard from Iain he was still having to deal with water damage to his
> offi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49167
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
Alexandre, did you just get assigned this because that's what happens with all
bugs with the "debug" component, or are you actually working on it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87310
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
201 - 300 of 3691 matches
Mail list logo
