* [Bug middle-end/37060] [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning
2008-08-08 15:16 [Bug middle-end/37060] New: [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning schwab at suse dot de
@ 2008-08-08 15:17 ` schwab at suse dot de
2008-08-08 15:44 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: schwab at suse dot de @ 2008-08-08 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from schwab at suse dot de 2008-08-08 15:16 -------
Created an attachment (id=16047)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16047&action=view)
Testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37060
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/37060] [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning
2008-08-08 15:16 [Bug middle-end/37060] New: [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning schwab at suse dot de
2008-08-08 15:17 ` [Bug middle-end/37060] " schwab at suse dot de
@ 2008-08-08 15:44 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-08-27 22:12 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-08-08 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-08 15:43 -------
We fail to see that the len == 16 case cannot happen in the second if (), more
specifically we fail to jump-thread because of the twisted CFG.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
GCC target triplet|ia64-*-* |
Keywords| |missed-optimization
Priority|P3 |P2
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-08-08 15:43:24
date| |
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37060
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/37060] [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning
2008-08-08 15:16 [Bug middle-end/37060] New: [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning schwab at suse dot de
2008-08-08 15:17 ` [Bug middle-end/37060] " schwab at suse dot de
2008-08-08 15:44 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-08-27 22:12 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-27 14:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-08-27 22:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-27 22:05 -------
4.3.2 is released, changing milestones to 4.3.3.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.3.2 |4.3.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37060
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/37060] [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning
2008-08-08 15:16 [Bug middle-end/37060] New: [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning schwab at suse dot de
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2008-08-27 22:12 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-12-27 14:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-01-24 10:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-12-27 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-27 14:41 -------
I don't get the warning on the trunk or the 4.3 branch on i386-darwin8.11.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37060
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/37060] [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning
2008-08-08 15:16 [Bug middle-end/37060] New: [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning schwab at suse dot de
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2008-12-27 14:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-01-24 10:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-03 17:15 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-01-24 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-24 10:20 -------
GCC 4.3.3 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.3.3 |4.3.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37060
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/37060] [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning
2008-08-08 15:16 [Bug middle-end/37060] New: [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning schwab at suse dot de
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2009-01-24 10:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-02-03 17:15 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2009-02-03 17:21 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gnu dot org @ 2009-02-03 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-02-03 17:15 -------
Only fails on 64-bit targets.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bonzini at gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37060
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/37060] [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning
2008-08-08 15:16 [Bug middle-end/37060] New: [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning schwab at suse dot de
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-03 17:15 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
@ 2009-02-03 17:21 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
2009-04-16 22:42 ` [Bug middle-end/37060] [4.3/4.4/4.5 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gnu dot org @ 2009-02-03 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-02-03 17:21 -------
Interesting: we actually propagate *more* on 64-bit targets, and end up with
__builtin___memcpy_chk (&buf, valbuf_7(D), 16, 8);
while on 32-bit we get
__builtin___memcpy_chk (&buf, valbuf_7(D), D.1293_2, 8);
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2008-08-08 15:43:24 |2009-02-03 17:21:05
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37060
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/37060] [4.3/4.4/4.5 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning
2008-08-08 15:16 [Bug middle-end/37060] New: [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning schwab at suse dot de
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-03 17:21 ` bonzini at gnu dot org
@ 2009-04-16 22:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-04 12:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-04-16 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-16 22:42 -------
Changing int len; into size_t len; and changing unsigned length to size_t
length; causes this to fail even on 32bits.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37060
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/37060] [4.3/4.4/4.5 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning
2008-08-08 15:16 [Bug middle-end/37060] New: [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning schwab at suse dot de
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2009-04-16 22:42 ` [Bug middle-end/37060] [4.3/4.4/4.5 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-08-04 12:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-22 18:25 ` [Bug middle-end/37060] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-08-04 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-04 12:29 -------
GCC 4.3.4 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.3.4 |4.3.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37060
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/37060] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning
2008-08-08 15:16 [Bug middle-end/37060] New: [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning schwab at suse dot de
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2009-08-04 12:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-22 18:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-25 0:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-22 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:12 -------
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.3.5 |4.3.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37060
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/37060] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning
2008-08-08 15:16 [Bug middle-end/37060] New: [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning schwab at suse dot de
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-22 18:25 ` [Bug middle-end/37060] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-25 0:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-25 0:17 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-26 9:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-25 0:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-25 00:04 -------
I think this testcase has some other issues at least on the trunk.
sparc_floating_p.isra.0 is produced for 32bit but not 64bit.
And then we have:
MEM[(const struct type *)type_1(D)].code;
Why didn't we just produce an indirect reference here as the const should be
able to be ignored? (CCing Richard about that part).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37060
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/37060] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning
2008-08-08 15:16 [Bug middle-end/37060] New: [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning schwab at suse dot de
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-25 0:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-25 0:17 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-26 9:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-25 0:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-25 00:17 -------
Here is a simple testcase of why 32bit does not produce the 16:
int j(unsigned a)
{
int c;
int b = a;
if (a == 1)
c = b;
else
c = 1;
return b + c;
}
--- CUT ---
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37060
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/37060] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning
2008-08-08 15:16 [Bug middle-end/37060] New: [4.3/4.4 regression] Bogus __builtin___memcpy_chk overflow warning schwab at suse dot de
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2010-07-25 0:17 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-26 9:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
12 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-26 9:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-26 09:06 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> I think this testcase has some other issues at least on the trunk.
> sparc_floating_p.isra.0 is produced for 32bit but not 64bit.
>
>
> And then we have:
> MEM[(const struct type *)type_1(D)].code;
>
> Why didn't we just produce an indirect reference here as the const should be
> able to be ignored? (CCing Richard about that part).
There are no more INDIRECT_REFs. The above is type_1->code, just not
pretty printed as such.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37060
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread