https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109330
Bug ID: 109330
Summary: ASAN since GCC-9 missed a stack-use-after-scope at -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109313
Bug ID: 109313
Summary: Incorrect line number in Use-After-Scope report
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109151
Bug ID: 109151
Summary: UBsan misses a divide-by-zero
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109107
Bug ID: 109107
Summary: UBsan since GCC-8 misses an integer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109050
Bug ID: 109050
Summary: UBsan failed to detect out-of-bound at -O0/1/2/s
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108963
Bug ID: 108963
Summary: ASAN produces wrong line number in the report
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108904
Bug ID: 108904
Summary: ASAN at -O2/3 missed a global buffer overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108903
Bug ID: 108903
Summary: ASAN may miss a global-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108864
Bug ID: 108864
Summary: Insufficient red zone in ASAN
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108824
Li Shaohua changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108824
Bug ID: 108824
Summary: ASAN -O2/3 missed a stack-buffer-underflow since
GCC-10
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108817
Bug ID: 108817
Summary: ASAN at -O3 failed to detect a global-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108637
Li Shaohua changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108637
--- Comment #2 from Li Shaohua ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> PRE removes the load/stores from/to *f .
> Basically the compiler is able to remove the use-after-scope usage with -O2
> and above.
Well, this makes sense to me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108637
Bug ID: 108637
Summary: ASAN at -O2 misses a stack-use-after-scope
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108628
Bug ID: 108628
Summary: ASAN at -O3 misses a stack-use-after-return
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108481
--- Comment #4 from Li Shaohua ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> i = i - 6822162149299574294;
>
> Is not being invoked on the executable code.
>
> If we look at look at the original code:
>
>
> if ((i * (unsigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108541
Bug ID: 108541
Summary: ASAN since GCC 9 missed a stack-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108510
--- Comment #2 from Li Shaohua ---
Sure: (compiler explorer: https://godbolt.org/z/3qEavnan5)
% cat a.c
int a;
char b;
int *c = , *d;
long e;
int main() {
long *f =
{
int g=0;
d =
}
*d << (b = ((*f)--, c || *d));
}
%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108514
Bug ID: 108514
Summary: ASAN at -O0 missed a stack-use-after-scope
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108510
Bug ID: 108510
Summary: ASAN missed a stack-use-after-scope at -O1
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108497
Bug ID: 108497
Summary: UBsan at -O1 failed to report an integer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108481
Bug ID: 108481
Summary: UBsan missed a signed integer overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108343
Bug ID: 108343
Summary: ASAN at -O3 misses a heap-use-after-free
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108094
--- Comment #2 from Li Shaohua ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> gcc pr108094.c -g -Wall -Werror -O2
> pr108094.c: In function ‘e’:
> pr108094.c:8:10: error: function returns address of local variable
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108094
Bug ID: 108094
Summary: gcc trunk's ASAN at -O2 and above did not report a
stack-use-after-return
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108085
Bug ID: 108085
Summary: gcc trunk's ASAN at -O3 missed a stack-use-after-scope
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108060
Bug ID: 108060
Summary: UBsan missed an out-of-bound bug at -O0
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108029
--- Comment #3 from Li Shaohua ---
(In reply to Li Shaohua from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > I can see the leak with both gcc-12 and gcc master.
>
> Interesting, because I tested using Compiler explorer. On my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108029
--- Comment #2 from Li Shaohua ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> I can see the leak with both gcc-12 and gcc master.
Interesting, because I tested using Compiler explorer. On my local machines,
some gcc-12 -O0 won't report, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108029
Bug ID: 108029
Summary: GCC'ASAN at -O0 failed to detect a memory leak
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108023
Bug ID: 108023
Summary: Incorrect line number in ASAN's report
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108014
Bug ID: 108014
Summary: Incorrect line number in UBSAN's report
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107912
Bug ID: 107912
Summary: UBsan at -O0 missed a signed integer overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107908
Bug ID: 107908
Summary: A null pointer dereference bug was missed by UBsan at
-O0
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107893
--- Comment #4 from Li Shaohua ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> That is,
>
> int main() {
> int *a = 0;
>(a[0] | a[1]) >> 056;
> }
>
> works at -O0:
>
> t.c:3:6: runtime error: load of null pointer of type 'int'
Yes,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107893
Bug ID: 107893
Summary: gcc trunk at -O0 (UBSan) misses a
Null-pointer-dereference
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107866
--- Comment #2 from Li Shaohua ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> This isn't reported since r12-3918-g5b8b1522e04adc20980f396571be1929a32d148a
> I wonder what is the point of -O3 -fsanitize=undefined, -fsanitize= severely
> slows
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107866
Bug ID: 107866
Summary: gcc trunk's UBSan misses a Nll-pointer-dereference at
-O3.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107806
Bug ID: 107806
Summary: gcc trunk at -O3 misses a global-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107752
--- Comment #3 from Li Shaohua ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Do you mean the column information rather than offset?
Yes, I meant the column information.
I don’t know the implementation details of ASAN. But as UBsan can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107752
Bug ID: 107752
Summary: Lack of offset information in AddressSanitizer reports
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107747
Bug ID: 107747
Summary: gcc trunk at -Os misses a global-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107746
Bug ID: 107746
Summary: gcc -O1 misses a stack-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107698
--- Comment #2 from Li Shaohua ---
I found a new test where gcc-O1 misses the global-buffer-overflow. Not sure if
these two have the same root cause:
% cat a.c
int a, c;
int *b =
int main() {
int d = *b;
for (; c < 3; c++)
b = b + (d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107698
Bug ID: 107698
Summary: ASAN misses a global-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107696
--- Comment #4 from Li Shaohua ---
Thanks for the prompt reply.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107696
--- Comment #2 from Li Shaohua ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > int i;
> > int a[1];
> > for (; i < 1;){
>
> This depends on the uninitialized value of 'i', which is:
>
> (gdb) p i
> $1 = 32767
>
> if I run it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107696
Bug ID: 107696
Summary: GCC trunk misses a stack-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107619
Bug ID: 107619
Summary: False positive of -fsanitize=null
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107586
Bug ID: 107586
Summary: gcc trunk missed a stack-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
--- Comment #14 from Li Shaohua ---
Hello, is this patch going to be pushed to the trunk?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107493
Bug ID: 107493
Summary: Wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107431
--- Comment #2 from Li Shaohua ---
Thanks a lot for the prompt reply!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107431
Bug ID: 107431
Summary: UBSan has inconsistent behaviors in certain code
snippet
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107410
--- Comment #1 from Li Shaohua ---
Compiler explorer: https://godbolt.org/z/9aqvx71xo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107410
Bug ID: 107410
Summary: ASan failed to detect a heap-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107407
Bug ID: 107407
Summary: Wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107387
Bug ID: 107387
Summary: gcc trunk -O2 crashes when enable UBSan
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107293
Bug ID: 107293
Summary: Wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107257
Li Shaohua changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107258
Bug ID: 107258
Summary: ASAN at -O1 failed to detect a stack-under-flow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107257
Bug ID: 107257
Summary: Wrong code at -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107246
Bug ID: 107246
Summary: gcc trunk crash in verify_gimple_in_cfg
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107176
Bug ID: 107176
Summary: Wrong code at -O0/-Os on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107086
Bug ID: 107086
Summary: gcc trunkc at -O1 failed to detect a
stack-use-after-return
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106995
--- Comment #1 from Li Shaohua ---
Sorry, it should be `gcc-tk -w -O2 a.c`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106995
Bug ID: 106995
Summary: gcc-trunk crash at -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106892
--- Comment #3 from Li Shaohua ---
Yes, I reduced it too much. Here is the new one with return value in g()
function.
a, b, c, d, e;
f[8];
g() {
while (a)
a >>= 4;
return 0;
}
h(i) {
if (i >= '0')
return i - '0';
}
j(i) {
b =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106892
Bug ID: 106892
Summary: Wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106591
Bug ID: 106591
Summary: ASan at -O1 fails to detect a global buffer overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558
Bug ID: 106558
Summary: ASan failed to detect a global-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106368
Bug ID: 106368
Summary: ASan fails to report an error.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105697
--- Comment #2 from Li Shaohua ---
I think the volatile keyword in function parameters is critical to this bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105750
--- Comment #2 from Li Shaohua ---
Yea, I'm aware of that. What makes me confused is for the following code, gcc
generates a larger redone for the struct variable j, i.e., 48 bytes.
https://godbolt.org/z/Wv1djjrqv
$cat b.c
struct a {
long
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105750
Bug ID: 105750
Summary: Too small red zone size for struct variables.
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105714
Bug ID: 105714
Summary: ASan in gcc trunk missed a buffer-overflow at -Os
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105697
Bug ID: 105697
Summary: GCC trunk failed to detect a stack buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105618
Bug ID: 105618
Summary: Missed loop body simplification by -O3 (trunk v.s.
10.3)
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105592
Bug ID: 105592
Summary: array out of bound not detected by ubsan
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105405
--- Comment #4 from Li Shaohua ---
@Jakub, I agree with you that the above test case may access too far from the
red zone. However, for the below test case, I cannot figure out why -O0 again
did not report anything. As a user, I would think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105405
--- Comment #2 from Li Shaohua ---
Yeah, I've tried that fix. It didn't fix the issue though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105405
Bug ID: 105405
Summary: missed buffer-overflow in -O0
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105396
Bug ID: 105396
Summary: missed stack-buffer-overflow by -O0
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105155
--- Comment #2 from Li Shaohua ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> We fold this already before gimplification to
>
> ;; Function foo (null)
> ;; enabled by -tree-original
>
>
> {
> return a > 0 ? -2147483648(OVF) :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105155
Bug ID: 105155
Summary: -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow failed to check an
overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105141
--- Comment #5 from Li Shaohua ---
No, I meant
#pragma pack(1)
struct {
char a[3];
int b;
} c;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105141
--- Comment #3 from Li Shaohua ---
Thanks for your explanation.
struct {
char a[3];
int b;
} c;
When I did this, the warning did not show up. Should it still be misaligned?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105141
Bug ID: 105141
Summary: #pragma pack(1) causes incorrect UBSAN warning
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105107
--- Comment #2 from Li Shaohua ---
Thanks for your prompt reply. The warning messages only appeared for -O0 and
-O3, not for -O1 and -O2. I wonder this might also be an issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105107
Bug ID: 105107
Summary: false positive stack-buffer-overflow in ASAN
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105084
--- Comment #3 from Li Shaohua ---
Thanks a lot for your explanation. That makes sense to me :).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105084
--- Comment #1 from Li Shaohua ---
Sorry, the triggering program should be the following:
$cat a.c
int a[] = {3};
int b = 7;
main() {
unsigned int *c =
*c = a[-1];
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105084
Bug ID: 105084
Summary: ASAN false positive on global-buffer-overflow
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103406
Bug ID: 103406
Summary: gcc -O0 behaves differently on "DBL_MAX related
operations" than gcc -O1 and above
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101798
Bug ID: 101798
Summary: rust-demangle.c infinite recursion
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: demangler
101 - 196 of 196 matches
Mail list logo
