[Bug analyzer/110198] [14 regression] g++.dg/analyzer/pr100244.C fails after r14-1632-g9589a46ddadc8b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110198 Benjamin Priour changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #7 from Benjamin Priour --- Finally fixed as patch https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=1eb90f46c16453f72dc119ba20b07053a15b452d
[Bug analyzer/110198] [14 regression] g++.dg/analyzer/pr100244.C fails after r14-1632-g9589a46ddadc8b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110198 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Benjamin Priour : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1eb90f46c16453f72dc119ba20b07053a15b452d commit r14-2203-g1eb90f46c16453f72dc119ba20b07053a15b452d Author: benjamin priour Date: Thu Jun 22 21:39:05 2023 +0200 analyzer: Fix regression bug after r14-1632-g9589a46ddadc8b [PR110198] g++.dg/analyzer/PR100244.C was failing after a patch of PR109439. The reason was a spurious preemptive return of get_store_value upon out-of-bounds read that was preventing further checks. Now instead, a boolean value check_poisoned goes to false when a OOB is detected, and is later on given to get_or_create_initial_value. gcc/analyzer/ChangeLog: PR analyzer/110198 * region-model-manager.cc (region_model_manager::get_or_create_initial_value): Take an optional boolean value to bypass poisoning checks * region-model-manager.h: Update declaration of the above function. * region-model.cc (region_model::get_store_value): No longer returns on OOB, but rather gives a boolean to get_or_create_initial_value. (region_model::check_region_access): Update docstring. (region_model::check_region_for_write): Update docstring. Signed-off-by: benjamin priour
[Bug analyzer/110198] [14 regression] g++.dg/analyzer/pr100244.C fails after r14-1632-g9589a46ddadc8b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110198 --- Comment #5 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- (In reply to Benjamin Priour from comment #4) > Yes, has been fixed and regtested a week ago. However I was in vacation > last week. > I will submit it shortly. though I would prefer to perform another > regtesting on a freshly pulled trunk first. You may need to rebase your changes again: after one of the changes in ce47d3c2cf59..0e466e978c72, gcc.dg/analyzer/pr101962.c appears to be fixed and there's just g++.dg/analyzer/pr100244.C left (for cris-elf). But please send your patches soon and let others test them, if your bootstrap cycles is longer than a day!
[Bug analyzer/110198] [14 regression] g++.dg/analyzer/pr100244.C fails after r14-1632-g9589a46ddadc8b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110198 --- Comment #4 from Benjamin Priour --- Yes, has been fixed and regtested a week ago. However I was in vacation last week. I will submit it shortly. though I would prefer to perform another regtesting on a freshly pulled trunk first. Benjamin. On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 4:37 PM hp at gcc dot gnu.org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110198 > > --- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- > (In reply to Benjamin Priour from comment #2) > > Yes sorry for the regression. I confirmed it myself too on > x86_64-linux-gnu. > > I wrote a fix immediately yesterday, and I am currently regtesting it. > > > > It is promising as I quickly ran the test only for the analyzer test > cases, > > all of them now are back to their expected behavior. > > > > I'm sending the patch as soon as the regtesting finishes, so probably > > tomorrow evening, as my keys on the compiler farm are not yet synced. > > Any news on this? I don't see anything posted to gcc-patches@ later than > 2023-06-09. > > If you have trouble testing the patch that you mention, please send it > anyway > with a message mentioning your troubles. > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug analyzer/110198] [14 regression] g++.dg/analyzer/pr100244.C fails after r14-1632-g9589a46ddadc8b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110198 --- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- (In reply to Benjamin Priour from comment #2) > Yes sorry for the regression. I confirmed it myself too on x86_64-linux-gnu. > I wrote a fix immediately yesterday, and I am currently regtesting it. > > It is promising as I quickly ran the test only for the analyzer test cases, > all of them now are back to their expected behavior. > > I'm sending the patch as soon as the regtesting finishes, so probably > tomorrow evening, as my keys on the compiler farm are not yet synced. Any news on this? I don't see anything posted to gcc-patches@ later than 2023-06-09. If you have trouble testing the patch that you mention, please send it anyway with a message mentioning your troubles.
[Bug analyzer/110198] [14 regression] g++.dg/analyzer/pr100244.C fails after r14-1632-g9589a46ddadc8b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110198 --- Comment #2 from Benjamin Priour --- Yes sorry for the regression. I confirmed it myself too on x86_64-linux-gnu. I wrote a fix immediately yesterday, and I am currently regtesting it. It is promising as I quickly ran the test only for the analyzer test cases, all of them now are back to their expected behavior. I'm sending the patch as soon as the regtesting finishes, so probably tomorrow evening, as my keys on the compiler farm are not yet synced. For pr101962.c, it was indeed just a now obsolete message that had to be removed. For pr100244.C it required to change the way OOB are handled by the uninitialized-value checker.
