From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id F1BE03858D33; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 14:45:41 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F1BE03858D33
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1687272341;
	bh=VucHtAahKgkWhNV5PaonGQq0g7tL5W4ErT8TKNinvZk=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=YIUjrd+HlsJgTjYfYtO86WLD/p9UB06Ih6yferTZtpCB/pdqpKH1oQhjttUa0HVvt
	 3jMSSoOxjdAurH7bYG199hTide9uMwVAaAoxPB8yy9NapnDbNEEdw364W1VeczTduc
	 Sy/g3LnA3A38m/A97XEFL59hqcU7KOIPKMJIM7+w=
From: "priour.be at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug analyzer/110198] [14 regression] g++.dg/analyzer/pr100244.C
 fails after r14-1632-g9589a46ddadc8b
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 14:45:41 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: analyzer
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: priour.be at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-110198-4-WiTtivr55E@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110198-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110198-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D110198

--- Comment #4 from Benjamin Priour <priour.be at gmail dot com> ---
Yes, has been fixed and regtested a week ago. However I was in vacation
last week.
I will submit it shortly. though I would prefer to perform another
regtesting on a freshly pulled trunk first.

Benjamin.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 4:37=E2=80=AFPM hp at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D110198
>
> --- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Benjamin Priour from comment #2)
> > Yes sorry for the regression. I confirmed it myself too on
> x86_64-linux-gnu.
> > I wrote a fix immediately yesterday, and I am currently regtesting it.
> >
> > It is promising as I quickly ran the test only for the analyzer test
> cases,
> > all of them now are back to their expected behavior.
> >
> > I'm sending the patch as soon as the regtesting finishes, so probably
> > tomorrow evening, as my keys on the compiler farm are not yet synced.
>
> Any news on this?  I don't see anything posted to gcc-patches@ later than
> 2023-06-09.
>
> If you have trouble testing the patch that you mention, please send it
> anyway
> with a message mentioning your troubles.
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are on the CC list for the bug.=