https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
Bug ID: 90866
Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in fold_binary_loc, at
fold-const.c:9827 since r272197
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90865
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43491
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43491
>
> Bill Schmidt changed:
>
>What|Removed |Adde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90801
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 13 08:41:13 2019
New Revision: 272235
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272235&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-13 Richard Biener
PR c++/90801
* typeck2.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I'm testing a patch candidate..
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90867
Bug ID: 90867
Summary: Multiplication or typecast of integer and double
always zero when...
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90867
--- Comment #1 from Sven Schmidt ---
Created attachment 46486
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46486&action=edit
Assembler output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90867
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
Priority
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90864
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90868
Bug ID: 90868
Summary: Duplicate OpenACC 'declare' directives for `extern`
variables
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
URL: https://github.com/OpenACC/openacc-spec/issues/194
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90868
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90856
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> So my patch survives bootstrap and regression tests, can you please Martin
> take the issue?
>
> Patch candidate:
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-strlen.c b/gcc/tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90856
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 46487
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46487&action=edit
gcc10-pr90856.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79775
--- Comment #3 from felix ---
A particularly amusing variant of this bug occurs with the following code:
struct x { struct x **xx; };
int y = __builtin_offsetof(struct x, xx->xx);
which gives the warning
$ gcc xx.c
xx.c:3:40:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
--- Comment #5 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
$ cat x.i
typedef enum { a } b;
typedef struct {
int c[0];
} d;
typedef struct {
int *data;
} e;
typedef struct {
e buffer;
} f;
int g, h;
int i();
int i(f *j, d *k, b l, int m) {
if (l)
if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
--- Comment #6 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko ---
(In reply to Dmitry G. Dyachenko from comment #5)
> $ cat x.i
> typedef enum { a } b;
> typedef struct {
> int c[0];
> } d;
> typedef struct {
> int *data;
> } e;
> typedef struct {
> e buffer;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90869
Bug ID: 90869
Summary: Non-disambiguated memory accesses
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90869
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
Another testcase. Here we should disambiguate both cases while we do only
second
struct a {int a1; int a2;};
struct b:a {};
struct b bvar,*bptr2;
int
test(void)
{
struct a *bptr = &bvar;
bptr->a2=0;
bptr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90865
--- Comment #2 from sshannin at gmail dot com ---
Thanks for such a quick reply. I just wanted to make sure I'm understanding
you correctly about what you mean when you say this is expected.
Are you indicating that it's desirable that the ubsan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90865
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to sshannin from comment #2)
> Thanks for such a quick reply. I just wanted to make sure I'm understanding
> you correctly about what you mean when you say this is expected.
>
> Are you indicating
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90865
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
> No, it's not desirable, but the current gcov can't distinguish between read
> code and the instrumented one.
>
* real code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90865
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
There is a way out of this. Defer building those conditionals till the sanopt
pass, before that have new IFN_UBSAN_* internal calls in the IL like we already
do with IFN_UBSAN_{NULL,BOUNDS,OBJECT_SIZE,PTR,VP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90856
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jun 13 13:03:13 2019
New Revision: 272244
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272244&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-13 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/90856
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90822
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Michael
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90812
--- Comment #3 from Jozef Lawrynowicz ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> I think most tests like this end up using 'long long' and use
> __SIZEOF_LONG_LONG__ to guard code. There's a dejagnu effective target for
> long long suppo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90856
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
--- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here's another one since my reducer finished :)
struct {
int a[0];
} b;
int c;
int d[0];
void e() {
b.a[c] = d[c + 1];
b.a[c + 1] = d[c];
}
-O3 needed on an aarch64 target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90869
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Jun 13 15:00:41 2019
New Revision: 272247
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272247&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimize/90869
* tree-ssa-alias.c (indirect_ref_ma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90870
Bug ID: 90870
Summary: new test case gfortran.dg/deferred_character_33.f90
fails
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90871
Bug ID: 90871
Summary: [10 regression] g++.dg/ext/altivec-15.C fails after
r272236
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90779
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Stubbs ---
My code now compiles successfully, with the patch, but it hangs at runtime.
I need to investigate, but debugging runtime issues on the GPU is slow work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90870
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Thu Jun 13 17:00:22 2019
New Revision: 272249
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272249&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-13 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/90870
* gfortran.dg/defe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90870
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90871
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90871
--- Comment #1 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jun 13 17:10:03 2019
New Revision: 272250
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272250&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-13 Paolo Carlini
PR target/90871
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90871
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90870
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> So, removing the test case.
The same should be done for the GGC8 and 9 branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90870
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> > So, removing the test case.
>
> The same should be done for the GGC8 and 9 branches.
May be not. My versions are probably not up to date.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90872
Bug ID: 90872
Summary: [8 regression] ICE on invalid in
contains_struct_check()
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priori
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jun 13 17:45:52 2019
New Revision: 272254
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272254&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-13 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/88810
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863
Bug 89863 depends on bug 88810, which changed state.
Bug 88810 Summary: gcc/fortran/dependency.c:2200: possible cut'n'paste error ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88810
What|Removed |Added
, sparc-sun-solaris2.11
Build: i386-pc-solaris2.11, sparc-sun-solaris2.11
Between 20190612 (r272223) and 20190613 (r272247), 32-bit bootstrap got broken
on Solaris/x86 and Solaris/SPARC:
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.c: In function 'bool
simplify_r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90873
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89344
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jun 13 18:07:53 2019
New Revision: 272255
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272255&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-13 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/89344
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89344
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Fixed on trunk. Thanks for the bug report.
Leavin PR open as I haven't decided if I will
back port the patch to other branches.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88324
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89292
seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90873
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i386-pc-solaris2.11,|i386-pc-solaris2.11,
|sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90874
Bug ID: 90874
Summary: trunk/gcc/ipa-utils.h:243: possible cut-n-paste error
?
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68544
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Thu Jun 13 18:40:19 2019
New Revision: 272259
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272259&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-06-13 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/68544
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68544
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63810
--- Comment #32 from Iain Sandoe ---
Author: iains
Date: Thu Jun 13 18:53:05 2019
New Revision: 272260
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272260&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Darwin, Driver - Improve processing of macosx-version-min=
For PR target/6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77820
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Jun 13 18:55:55 2019
New Revision: 272261
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272261&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/77820
* tree-ssa-threadedge.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77820
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90805
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90874
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90875
Bug ID: 90875
Summary: warnings about switch values outside range don't have
associated option
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87281
Jason Duerstock changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason.duerstock at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90873
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90626
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90873
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
Does adding initializers to those vars fix the bootstrap? Or does it run into
wrong code?
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88834
--- Comment #20 from Christophe Lyon ---
Hi Kugan,
The new test fails with -mabi=ilp32:
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/pr88834.c scan-assembler-times \\tld2w\\t{z[0-9]+.s -
z[0-9]+.s}, p[0-7]/z, \\[x[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, lsl 2\\]\\n 2
FAIL: gcc.target/aarc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90876
Bug ID: 90876
Summary: fold zero-equality of memcmp and strncmp involving
strings of unequal lengths
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90876
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90877
Bug ID: 90877
Summary: Dead codes in ix86_register_move_cost
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89647
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90876
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90578
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-06/msg00077.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90873
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Jun 13 21:56:37 2019
New Revision: 272273
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272273&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/90873
* tree-ssa-alias.c (indirect_ref_may_al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90878
Bug ID: 90878
Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] integer -> SSE register move isn't
generated
Product: gcc
Version: 8.3.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90879
Bug ID: 90879
Summary: fold zero-equality of strcmp between a longer string
and a smaller array
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90875
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
rcx
movq%rdx, (%rsi,%rdi,8)
cmpq%rcx, %r8
jle .L10
movq%rdx, (%rsi,%rcx,8)
ret
.p2align 4,,10
.p2align 3
.L9:
vzeroupper
.L10:
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.size foo, .-foo
.ident "GCC:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90878
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Why is this PR marked as a regression?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87281
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
No idea. I ran all-languages builds for all glibc ABIs as a one-off when
adding the --full-gcc option to build-many-glibcs.py, and reported the GCC
bugs that showed up. The idea was that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90873
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90880
Bug ID: 90880
Summary: compile error instead of SFINAE with non-public member
variables
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90881
Bug ID: 90881
Summary: -Wunused-value false positive with
Product: gcc
Version: 9.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90878
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> Why is this PR marked as a regression?
GCC 7 doesn't use memory:
[hjl@gnu-cfl-1 sse-move]$ cat x.s
.file "x.i"
.text
.p2align 4,,15
.g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90880
--- Comment #1 from Federico Kircheis ---
After researching a little bit more, I've convinced myself that
`status::value` should be false, as `decltype` has no special rules for
accessing private data, thus clang is correct.
If someone could con
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90880
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90881
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90880
--- Comment #3 from Federico Kircheis ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to Federico Kircheis from comment #1)
> > After researching a little bit more, I've convinced myself that
> > `status::value` should be false, as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90881
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90662
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Fri Jun 14 02:07:02 2019
New Revision: 272281
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272281&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/90662 - strlen of a string in a vla plus offset not f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90866
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84577
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90882
Bug ID: 90882
Summary: Possible security breach through undefined behavior
when treating boolean as int
Product: gcc
Version: 7.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90882
--- Comment #1 from Kevin Dewald ---
When compiling and running the attached code using GCC 7.4.0, the output prints
both 'true' and 'false'.
When testing if the variable 'boolean' is false, an XOR 1,EAX instruction is
executed on that memory po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90882
--- Comment #2 from Kevin Dewald ---
Created attachment 46489
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46489&action=edit
objdump of main section
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90401
--- Comment #3 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: fxue
Date: Fri Jun 14 02:34:48 2019
New Revision: 272282
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272282&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR ipa/90401
gcc/ChangeLog:
* ipa-prop.c (add_to_agg_con
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
