https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98223
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98293
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98918
Bug ID: 98918
Summary: Analyzer false positives due to sm-state involving
UNKNOWN pointers
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98918
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98918
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Analyzer false positives|[11 Regression] Analyzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98830
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-01-26
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93355
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Current status is that there is testcase coverage for this in git, but the test
requires:
/* { dg-additional-options "-Wno-analyzer-too-complex
-fno-analyzer-feasibility" } */
(a) It happens to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93355
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #6)
> The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8a2750086d57d1a2251d9239fa4e6c2dc9ec3a86
>
> commit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97932
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101068
Bug ID: 101068
Summary: Analyzer does not purge constraints in loops (e.g. in
explode-2.c)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101082
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] |[11 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101143
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101143
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101198
Bug ID: 101198
Summary: libstdc++-v3/doc/html/manual/policy_based_data_structu
res_test.html is not valid XHTML; fails DTD validation
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101134
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101081
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-06-15
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101081
Bug ID: 101081
Summary: analyzer testsuite failures seen with new glibc due to
malloc attribute
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
--- Comment #18 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus from comment #17)
> The new testcases introduced by commit d3b1ef7a83c fail on IBM Z as well as
> some older data-model tests:
Sorry about this; it sounds similar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101082
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100904
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
FWIW the following hackish workaround seems to fix it, though am still
investigating why this is happening.
diff --git a/libcpp/directives.c b/libcpp/directives.c
index f4aa17d1156..b5bdd443a5a 100644
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100546
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100615
Bug ID: 100615
Summary: analyzer failed to report leak in rxtxcpu's
parse_cpu_list
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100615
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100705
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|warn about dead store |RFE: warn about dead store
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100540
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100688
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
One other thing: the docs should make it clear about the leading ".".
If I want to create the equivalent of:
__attribute__((section(".section")))
do I call it with:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100688
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for the patch; I like the idea; various nits below:
> diff --git a/gcc/jit/docs/topics/expressions.rst
> b/gcc/jit/docs/topics/expressions.rst
> index 396259ef07e..b39f6c02527 100644
> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100244
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100615
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101217
Bug ID: 101217
Summary: Stray "note" diagnostics when warning suppressed in
gcc.dg/analyzer/setjmp-2.c
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101216
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[12 regression] |[12 regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101386
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for filing this bug.
The:
__attribute__((malloc, malloc(string_delete)))
is confusing the analyzer; if I remove it, the code compiles without warnings.
I'm not yet sure what the analyzer should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Error in build()|-Werror=format-security
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> (In reply to sujay1844 from comment #2)
> > So is the AUR package having a bug??
>
> What's AUR? Can you investigate what sets the -Wformat-security ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
--- Comment #12 from David Malcolm ---
Is that the default /etc/makepkg.conf, or did you hand-edit it? (i.e is this
something that all AUR users are going to run into, or just you?)
Clearly the "-Werror=format-security" is not compatible with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100207
--- Comment #14 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to sujay1844 from comment #13)
> (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #12)
> > Is that the default /etc/makepkg.conf, or did you hand-edit it? (i.e is
> > this something that all AUR users
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100244
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[11/12 Regression] ICE: |[11 Regression] ICE:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100244
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98575
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
This turns out to be due to differences in the inline implementation of getchar
in which expose a latent bug in leak-detection.
On my x86_64 Fedora 32 box,
/usr/include/bits/stdio.h is from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98575
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
The false leak bug appears to very similar to PR analyzer/97072.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98575
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
The pertinent glibc commit was:
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=26c07172cde74617ca7214c93cdcfa75321e6b2b
("Remove getc and putc macros from the public stdio.h.", 2018-02-06).
It's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98969
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|msebor at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99028
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
At -fanalyzer-verbosity=1 and below, we only show those two events:
In function ‘add_to_trie’:
../../src/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/analyzer/pr99028.c:175:28: warning: dereference
of possibly-NULL ‘child’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
FWIW I had another go at reproduing this, but after various failures due to
running out of disk space, I was able to rebuild the SRPM from comment #0
without seeing the crash, via:
mock --rebuild
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99028
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98575
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99042
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Summary|file-leak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99044
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #19 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #18)
> Converting one of both of those "const" and "void" to non-macros ought to
"one or both", I meant to say
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #14 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #13)
> $ rpm -q mock
> mock-2.3-1.fc32.noarch
Sorry, my bad; I had quite an old mock. I've upgraded, and the build is now
progressing beyond that point.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99042
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Antonio Chirizzi from comment #2)
> just curious of what you mean with "unknown function". Is it something that
> has not been declared or is not known to the compiler up to that point?
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #13 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Michael Cronenworth from comment #12)
> That's the Linux GCC. You will want to see the version for MinGW:
> mingw-gcc-9.2.1-6.fc32 - which does not crash so I'm not surprised you
> didn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #15 from David Malcolm ---
#0 fancy_abort (file=0x95b0ab6 "../../libcpp/line-map.c", line=1359,
function=0x95b0ace "linemap_compare_locations")
at ../../gcc/diagnostic.c:1778
#1 0x08fcbecf in linemap_compare_locations
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99064
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96940
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
--- Comment #22 from David Malcolm ---
*** Bug 96940 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93109
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE in |[10 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98021
--- Comment #17 from David Malcolm ---
One aspect of the original case in comment #0 that hasn't been mentioned in
this discussion is that the two #warning messages are related to each other.
It looks to me like the author of those lines
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99064
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98969
--- Comment #9 from David Malcolm ---
*** Bug 99064 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98459
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98294
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98918
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99714
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
The C case in comment #0 doesn't look like what I think you meant to write, and
the analyzer (correctly IMHO) complains about a leak:
: In function 'init':
:22:61: warning: leak of 'p' [CWE-401]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95043
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99716
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-03-23
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99771
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99771
Bug ID: 99771
Summary: Analyzer diagnostics should not say ""
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99774
Bug ID: 99774
Summary: False positive from -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak in loop
(qemu:libvhost-user.c)
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99774
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99854
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jseward at acm dot org
--- Comment #11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99906
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99886
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99886
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99886
Bug ID: 99886
Summary: Infinite loop in -fanalyzer seen on
gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-1.c with -fanalyzer-verbosity=0
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99906
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99906
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Testing a fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99860
Bug ID: 99860
Summary: RFE: analyzer does not respect "restrict"
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99771
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
The above patch fixes some of the occurrences of the bug (due to (b)), but not
those due to (a), so keeping this bug open.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99044
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93695
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
The above commit helps with related issues, but doesn't yet fix this bug.
In particular, -Wanalyzer-too-complex shows that the analyzer generates an
infinite chain of states for the loop, and eventually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99716
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99738
Bug ID: 99738
Summary: RFE: analyzer should complain about unchecked FILE *
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99716
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2)
> Also, I think we're missing a warning about "fp" possibly being NULL, for
> the case where the fopen fails.
I've filed this as bug 99738.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm ---
I no longer believe the patch in comment #9 is correct.
My latest analysis of this issue is:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/564070.html
(I was hoping for a response from Honza on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95758
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||99390
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93355
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Missing diagnostic for |Analyzer
|missing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96894
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||99390
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96374
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93355
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
The above patch fixes the feasibility issue in (b) above, and the analyzer now
successfully emits a diagnostic for the leak.
The only remaining issue is (a) (see comment #9 above).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95188
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||99390
--- Comment #13 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99614
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99669
Bug ID: 99669
Summary: RFE: detect division by zero in analyzer
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
101 - 200 of 1359 matches
Mail list logo
