From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 97A643858D37; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:54:48 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 97A643858D37 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1700589288; bh=vhfC5oxnsD99BLuF0CEAOu8oHNa46/f5SaDST8Nj3xg=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=voTmOAbyvz/EIsE95NhWdSt/mcDsCVM9x/7sj3HVrRL8gdXIqltHGMH925NcTbsfU 656h9Ve1Ko3MRTTuZvi3F7cVjXuaEW3LkSIaoE5YA3UAwvUIEIqdQrtS/vX8RNED4Y L9YcgQaNdWeSlW3H9mapVfsXyZrh4smD6x5fxQX8= From: "hp at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug testsuite/106120] [13 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails since r13-1268-g8c99e307b20c50 Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:54:48 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic, patch, testsuite-fail X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: hp at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106120 --- Comment #11 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #10) > Since 20230106, this test produces an XPASS, according to gcc-testresults > postings this happens everywhere: >=20 > +XPASS: g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C -std=3Dgnu++98 pr106120 (test= for > bogus messages, line 144) >=20 > The corresponding line is >=20 > T (S (2), new int16_t[r_imin_imax + 1]); // { dg-bogus "into a region of > size" "pr106120" { xfail { c++98_only } } } >=20 > I think that xfail should just be removed? Yes, though I think the date 20230106 is wrong (at least regarding the "everywhere") and maybe a typo for 20231006, at least according to my own l= ogs - where I unsurprisingly don't track XPASS. Gotta fix that.=