https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
Jakub Miernik changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub1miernik at gmail dot com
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
Sven Hesse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sven.hesse at drmccoy dot de
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Sven Hesse from comment #17)
> I still get this with gcc 12.2.0 (Gentoo 12.2.0 p9), but only when compiling
> with (at least with) -O1 -fsanitize=address, in addition to any warning flag
> tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I suppose the libstdc++ header could do something like:
#pragma GCC diagnostic push
#if defined __SANITIZE_ADDRESS__ && defined __OPTIMIZE__
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wmaybe-uninitialized"
#endif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent.lextrait at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||12.1.0
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:844a5c8ca768dc0cc90c1a943756610832d686a8
commit r12-8400-g844a5c8ca768dc0cc90c1a943756610832d686a8
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
Romain Geissler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||romain.geissler at amadeus dot
com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
The bug wasn't about uninit diagnostics with ASAN but without. There are
plenty of diagnostic "bugs" when sanitizing is enabled and those are really
hard to fix since plenty of diagnostics rely on optimiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
--- Comment #25 from Romain Geissler ---
So it means we should rather go for "silencing" workaround from comment #19 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
--- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 6 Dec 2023, romain.geissler at amadeus dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
>
> --- Comment #25 from Romain Geissler ---
> So it means we should rather
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is just a very partial solution. As mentioned in lots of other
bugreports, one should simply ignore or take with a grain of salt warnings
from the instrumented builds (whether it is -fsanitize=undefi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
--- Comment #28 from Romain Geissler ---
Ok it's clear. I haven't really played yet with sanitizers, I didn't know it
had these well known "issue" with creating more middle end false positive
warnings (I am used to them in LTO mode).
So I will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #29 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105562
Uri Simchoni changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||urisimchoni at gmail dot com
--- Comment
16 matches
Mail list logo