Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 49229
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49229&action=edit
Testcase demonstrating the problem.
Hi,
the attached simple testcase abor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97073
--- Comment #5 from Franz Sirl ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> This broke in between r102000 (still good) and r104000 (already
> miscompiled), so I don't believe that 6.3.1 worked.
Hmm, maybe something in 6.3.1 is masking the b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97073
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work|6.3.1 |
--- Comment #7 from Franz Sirl ---
No, my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97073
--- Comment #8 from Franz Sirl ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Created attachment 49236 [details]
> gcc11-pr97073.patch
>
> Untested fix.
I can confirm that this patch applied to the gcc-8 branch fixes the testcase
and the ori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97157
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 47133
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47133&action=edit
testcase
The attached creduced testcases recently started to warn differently in trunk
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 47176
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47176&action=edit
testcase
This code:
typedef struct {
char cs[256];
} inner_small
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This small testcase warns 3 time when compiled with 8.0.1@r259308:
extern char a[], b[], d[];
int c, e;
char *strcpy(char *, const char
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 43950
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43950&action=edit
C t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85420
--- Comment #1 from Franz Sirl ---
Created attachment 43951
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43951&action=edit
C++ testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85420
--- Comment #3 from Franz Sirl ---
Hmm, this maybe creduce'd too much, the original source reads more like
strcpy(b, b + a + 10);
which would be only UB for sure if strlen(b + a + 10) >= 9, or?
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 44067
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85650
--- Comment #1 from Franz Sirl ---
Created attachment 44068
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44068&action=edit
testcase 2
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86_64-linux
Created attachment 44070
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44070&action=edit
t
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This short creduced snippet
enum { a = 1 } b;
int c() {
int d = a;
for (; d;)
d &= d - 1;
return b;
}
compiled with "gcc-9 -c -W -Wall
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 44335
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44335&action=edit
testcase
The a
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 42933
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42933&action=edit
testcase
The attached testcase started to pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83510
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||6.4.0, 7.2.0
--- Comment #2 from Franz Sirl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83510
--- Comment #6 from Franz Sirl ---
The patch in comment 5 applied to r256877 fixes the warning in both the
testcase and the original code.
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 43216
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43216&action=edit
testcase
Compiling the attached file with r256939 of trunk issues 2 w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88993
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86532
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15
IRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
With gcc-8 trunk@258093 for this example
char *append_leading_digits(char *cp, int i)
{
char buf[16];
__builtin_sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84670
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-linux
Target: powerpc-eabi
For an example like:
struct smallstruct { char a; char b; char c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82501
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
, at cp/mangle.c:878
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85078
--- Comment #1 from Franz Sirl ---
The ICE was introduced between r257623 and r257685.
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This small testcase doesn't warn if compiled with -g and -O1 or higher. Only
"-g -O0" or for example -O2 without -g warn for the te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84762
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||3.1.1
--- Comment #11 from Franz Sirl ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84762
--- Comment #13 from Franz Sirl ---
Yes, I can do a patch for GCC-9. Any idea for the option naming? Like
-msvr4-struct-return-msb? Or should I consolidate -maix-struct-return and
-msvr4-struct-return into -maggr-return-mode={aix,svr4,svr4gnu}?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70847
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71393
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70847
--- Comment #9 from Franz Sirl ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Created attachment 38636 [details]
> gcc7-pr70847.patch
>
> Untested fix.
Applied to gcc-6-branch r237059, no testsuite regressions. Testcase from
comment 6 and or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46742
--- Comment #4 from Franz Sirl ---
APPEARS_TO_BE_BOOLEAN_EXPR_P was introduced with r141340 (PR 7543), but I
cannot find a discussion on why this suppression makes sense. When I disable it
I only see 3 places where it triggers in trunk:
gcc/cp/l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46742
--- Comment #5 from Franz Sirl ---
Actually, after seeing a large bunch of justified warnings in our codebase with
the disabled APPEARS_TO_BE_BOOLEAN_EXPR_P check, I wonder if a new option like
-Wbool-bitwise-parentheses (thus not depending on th
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This testcase warns only once with -Wdeclaration-after-statement since at least
gcc-4.8:
#include
bool f2(char *pRedo)
{
if
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This example code doesn't warn with -Wtautological-compare:
int f(int a)
{
if ((a & 0x10) == 10)
return 1;
return 0;
}
clang warns
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 42211
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42211&action=edit
testcase
The attached testcase removes conditions in the loop when compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82271
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.4, 4.6.4, 4.7.4
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82271
--- Comment #3 from Franz Sirl ---
The bug was introduced with r195054:
2013-01-09 Jan Hubicka
PR tree-optimiation/55875
* tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (number_of_iterations_cond): Add
EVERY_ITERATION parameter.
(num
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82271
--- Comment #6 from Franz Sirl ---
Actually this is likely triggered by undefined behaviour. The array m_pTemp is
too small for nAccessSize=4096. Increasing the array size to 1024 elements
makes the bug go away.
If you agree, just close the bug a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46476
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I couldn't find (also grepping under trunk/gcc/doc) any documentation on the -e
commandline option. It seems the option and it's argument are directly passed
to the linker, sim
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
We have an inhouse C source where the memory usage is excessive (> 88GB, then
OOM killed) with GCC-7/x86_64 (7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80930
--- Comment #2 from Franz Sirl ---
Further investigation shows that "-O2 -fsanitize=undefined" is enough to
trigger the excessive memory usage.
The big difference between GCC-6 and GCC-7 is that the function causing this
has ~20 blocks in GCC
||2017-07-05
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Franz Sirl ---
Still happens with 7.1.1 and trunk. clang catches both with the
-Wlogical-not-parentheses option.
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 40179
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40179&action=edit
testcase
The attached testcase produces warnings with gcc-4.4.7 on RHEL6, but somewhere
al
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
current trunk (tried r243299 and r243376) on x86_64 fails a profiledbootstrap
with --enable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78817
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This small testcase warns differently for -O0/g/1/2/3 with this "gcc -c
-Wformat-truncation test.c"
extern int snprintf(char *str, __SIZE_TYPE__ size, const char *format,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79082
--- Comment #4 from Franz Sirl ---
Hmm, %hhd is not usable on some of our platforms and also only really helpful
with exact %x outputs:
snprintf(buffer, 3, "%02hhx", val);
What about:
snprintf(buffer, 4, "%03hx", val & 0xfff);
Here the 'h
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This strange creduce'd testcase warns with current trunk:
typedef struct {
char * bs;
} xstruct;
void test (char ch, long h
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I believe this testcase modeled after real code should warn when falling
through into 'case 4'.
int
test (int v1, int v2)
{
switch (v1)
{
case 3:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79082
--- Comment #6 from Franz Sirl ---
Created attachment 40566
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40566&action=edit
extended testcase
Hmm, looks like there is an off-by-one bug lurking here?
To clarify my setup, here are the warni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79153
--- Comment #6 from Franz Sirl ---
I see. If you really close it as WONTFIX, could this small deficiency at least
be documented in the manual? I guess the non-warning case happens only when the
switch-statement directly (no other statements in be
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This creduce'd testcase crashes with -Wduplicated-branches (trunk r244773).
unsigned int a, b, c, d, e;
void fn1(void) {
if (0) {
if (d > 4294967293)
(void) 5;
c = d;
b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79082
--- Comment #9 from Franz Sirl ---
With r244892 and -O2 -Wformat-truncation=2 I nearly get the warnings I expect.
What remains is case 3, but this seems to be a small deficiency in VRP. For the
term I used ((val < 0) ? -(val % 100) : (val % 100
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This code:
class Base
{
public:
static bool state();
};
class Derived : public Base
{
};
class MyClass
{
public:
Derived *m_Derived;
Base *m_Base;
bool state();
};
bool MyClass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79082
--- Comment #14 from Franz Sirl ---
I just finished testing with r245021 and now the warnings are as expected. All
warnings are there with -Wformat-truncation=2 and also -Wformat-truncation=1
behaves according to the documentation (BTW, there's a
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 40820
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40820&action=edit
testcase
With trunk r245678 on x86_64 the attached testcase prints these warnings:
gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79692
--- Comment #3 from Franz Sirl ---
I can confirm that the patch fixes both the submitted testcase and the original
code.
Thanks for your efforts.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78735
--- Comment #1 from Franz Sirl ---
Can be worked around by bootstrapping with --disable-werror. Last reconfirmed
with trunk r246380. Trunk is at 7.0.1, so --disable-werror is the default right
now.
I guess the only real question is if the profil
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 41073
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41073&action=edit
testcase
The attached testcase issues 2 warnin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79265
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79265
--- Comment #6 from Franz Sirl ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> This is a new warning, the fact that we didn't warn on some code and now
> warn with a new warning is not necessarily a regression.
Well, I wasn't so sure either if
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org,
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
This is
: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 35578
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35578&action=edit
Testcase to reproduce
The following indenting style generates a false
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66220
--- Comment #4 from Franz Sirl ---
Patch from #c3 works fine for our codebase, I couldn't spot any false positives
anymore.
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
With x86_64 gcc-6 r230524 (r230119 was still OK) compiling this little fragment
with -Wall -Wextra:
int testwarn(int *pCnShifted)
{
int cnShifted = *pCnShifted;
_Bool
Component: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Created attachment 34617
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34617&action=edit
Simple testcase. Use "make" to reproduce.
While trying to construct a testcase
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org,
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
This
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Created attachment 34080
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34080&action=edit
testcase to reproduce the bug
The attached t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62153
--- Comment #8 from Franz Sirl ---
Hmm, what about the assignment part of the merged bug 44077:
_Bool var = 3;
Does the fix warn about this? Should I create a new bug report for this part?
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This little example issues an error now on trunk r231490:
# gcc -c -Werror=format -x c -
ormal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
With trunk gcc r231490, for a simple out of bounds access like
int arr[3];
int f(void)
{
return arr[5];
}
-Werror=array-bounds=[12] don&#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68833
--- Comment #4 from Franz Sirl ---
The fix in Comment 3 works fine for me. No testsuite regressions and also the
application where I spotted this compiles/warns as expected now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68845
--- Comment #3 from Franz Sirl ---
Created attachment 37035
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37035&action=edit
Alias -Warray-bounds to Warray-bounds=
Tentative patch, no regressions. Please commit if OK, I don't have valid
cr
: lto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 37096
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37096&action=edit
Testcase, use 'gmake all'.
The attached testcase doesn&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69003
--- Comment #2 from Franz Sirl ---
Only gcc-4.8 works (4.8.3 20140627 [gcc-4_8-branch revision 212064]), gcc-4.9
onwards all show the same behaviour.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69237
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69237
--- Comment #4 from Franz Sirl ---
For me, yes. Because as a reader knowing nothing about the code and looking for
some kind of "bug" in the code, I cannot decide easily if the _intention_ was
if (elem)
{
*elem = (*this)[fCount - 1];
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69003
--- Comment #6 from Franz Sirl ---
Yes, this fixes the testcase and also the real application it was derived from
here. No testsuite regressions on x86_64 either.
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 35691
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35691&action=edit
testcase, warns with gcc-6 -c -O2 -fsanitize=un
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66397
--- Comment #3 from Franz Sirl ---
Yeah, I feared so :-(. This is a bit unfortunate though, as for our code base
we compile with -Werror=array-bounds, now when I add -fsanitize=undefined I
need to downgrade the error to a warning again. Another s
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Up to gcc-5.1.1 r225711 -Wunused-functions warns like that:
> echo 'static void test(void);' | LA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99299
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99299
--- Comment #8 from Franz Sirl ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7)
> (In reply to Franz Sirl from comment #5)
> > For the naming I suggest __builtin_debugtrap() to align with clang. Maybe
> > with an aliased __debugbreak() on Win
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95673
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98144
--- Comment #13 from Franz Sirl ---
Some data for the inhouse testcase in Bug 80930 with ASAN+UBSAN:
gcc-9@r9-8944: OOM killed after 15min at ~85 GB
gcc-10@r10-9345: takes ~25min to compile, max mem ~6.5GB
Thanks for this nice improvement!
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
with this minimized testcase, compiled with -O2 -Warray-bounds:
struct s1
{
char b[12];
};
struct s2
{
int x;
struct s1 y;
} *pb, c;
extern struct s2 *es;
void test1 (int f
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
With this testcase:
class cl1 {
virtual void m();
};
class cl2 : public cl1 {
public:
int g();
int h();
int i();
};
class cl3 {
cl1 *p;
int g();
int h
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
this small example
extern volatile int *x;
static int gCrc;
static int crc16Add(int crc, int b) __attribute__((noinline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108821
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenther at suse dot de
--- Comment #2 fr
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 53676
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53676&acti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107182
--- Comment #1 from Franz Sirl ---
Created attachment 53677
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53677&action=edit
Related GCDA file
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
this minimized testcase issues
# gcc-12 -O2 -Warray-bounds -c testcase.c
testcase.c: In function 'fun3.part.0':
testcase.c:16:13: warning: array subscript
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105690
--- Comment #3 from Franz Sirl ---
I managed to minimize the testcase a bit more:
unsigned int gvar1;
void fun1(int);
void fun2(unsigned int, char *);
int fun2_maxlen;
typedef struct {
int exist;
int mode;
} table_t;
table_t gtable[20];
vo
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
A PowerPC32 GCC configured with "--target=powerpc-unknown-eabi
--enable-languages=c,c++ --with-cp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91050
Franz Sirl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sirl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #17
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
