https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:54fa5567a27eb7ee72cd2321d0291c8a9b436ce9
commit r12-4376-g54fa5567a27eb7ee72cd2321d0291c8a9b436ce9
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
Section 25.8. Using FS and GS segments in user space applications in
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/x86/x86_64/fsgs.html makes it sound like
null might be a valid address in a named address space. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
A test case is below. Warnings for accesses at address zero are intentionally
suppressed (to avoid false positives for unreachable code) but they are issued
for accesses at nonzero offsets from null because
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
If the warning is keeping Glibc from building with GCC 12 then applying the
patch until this is resolved (hopefully still in stage 1, or in stage 3) seems
like a reasonable workaround. It wouldn't be the fir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Since we concluded this was a GCC bug, rather than an unavoidable
limitation of the warning, suppressing it in glibc seems inappropriate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102630
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Blocks|
