https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98549
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #10)
> (And that new test case is full of obvious invalid code as well, fwiw.)
Wait here. Changing the code to:
long compress_n_blocks = 0;
void GOST_34_11::compress_n() {
for (long i = 0; i < compress_n_blocks; ++i) {
unsigned char S[32], S2[32];
the function GOST_34_11::compress_n now does not execute at all. Thus it should
not consider an invalid code. Can you please prove where the invalid code?
Moreover, the test-case comes from the original Botan benchmark:
https://github.com/randombit/botan
I'm able to run the benchmark with Sanitizers enabled, so I really don't think
it contains an invalid code.
