public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/89976] missing uninitialized warning for uninitialized struct member (VOPs)
       [not found] <bug-89976-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2020-06-23 21:03 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
  2021-04-01 23:10 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (8 subsequent siblings)
  9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-06-23 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89976
Bug 89976 depends on bug 49754, which changed state.

Bug 49754 Summary: Wuninitialized does not work with structs/unions/arrays
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49754

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug c++/89976] missing uninitialized warning for uninitialized struct member (VOPs)
       [not found] <bug-89976-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
  2020-06-23 21:03 ` [Bug c++/89976] missing uninitialized warning for uninitialized struct member (VOPs) msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-04-01 23:10 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
  2021-04-16 21:30 ` [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [9/10/11 Regression] missing -Wuninitialized for struct member due to sra and TREE_NO_WARNING msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (7 subsequent siblings)
  9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-04-01 23:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89976
Bug 89976 depends on bug 79658, which changed state.

Bug 79658 Summary: [-Wuninitialized] referencing uninitialized field of POD struct should warn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79658

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [9/10/11 Regression] missing -Wuninitialized for struct member due to sra and TREE_NO_WARNING
       [not found] <bug-89976-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
  2020-06-23 21:03 ` [Bug c++/89976] missing uninitialized warning for uninitialized struct member (VOPs) msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
  2021-04-01 23:10 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-04-16 21:30 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
  2021-04-19  7:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (6 subsequent siblings)
  9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-04-16 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89976

Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component|c++                         |tree-optimization
            Summary|missing uninitialized       |[9/10/11 Regression]
                   |warning for uninitialized   |missing -Wuninitialized for
                   |struct member (VOPs)        |struct member due to sra
                   |                            |and TREE_NO_WARNING
   Last reconfirmed|2019-11-02 00:00:00         |2021-4-16
                 CC|                            |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
      Known to fail|                            |10.2.0, 11.0, 4.5.3, 4.6.4,
                   |                            |4.9.4, 5.5.0, 6.4.0, 7.2.0,
                   |                            |8.3.0, 9.1.0

--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
In all cases and with -O1 and above, the uninitialized read is clearly visible
in the IL but it's suppressed because the variable (such as x$x in case 1) has
the TREE_NO_WARNING bit set.  This appears to be regression introduced in GCC
4.5 in r147980.

gcc -O1 -S -Wall -std=c++14 -fdump-tree-uninit=/dev/stdout pr89976.C 

;; Function foo (_Z3foov, funcdef_no=3, decl_uid=2098, cgraph_uid=4,
symbol_order=3)

struct X foo ()
{
  int x$x;                             <<< TREE_NO_WARNING == 1
  struct X D.2133;

  <bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]:
  D.2133.x = x$x_2(D);                 <<< uninitialized read
  D.2133.y = 0;
  return D.2133;

}



;; Function main (main, funcdef_no=4, decl_uid=2129, cgraph_uid=5,
symbol_order=4) (executed once)

int main ()
{
  int x$x;                             <<< TREE_NO_WARNING == 1
  struct X D.2156;
  struct X x;

  <bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]:
  x ={v} {CLOBBER};
  return x$x_5(D);                     <<< uninitialized read

}

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [9/10/11 Regression] missing -Wuninitialized for struct member due to sra and TREE_NO_WARNING
       [not found] <bug-89976-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2021-04-16 21:30 ` [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [9/10/11 Regression] missing -Wuninitialized for struct member due to sra and TREE_NO_WARNING msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-04-19  7:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
  2021-06-01  8:13 ` [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [9/10/11/12 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (5 subsequent siblings)
  9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-04-19  7:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89976

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P2
   Target Milestone|---                         |9.4

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [9/10/11/12 Regression] missing -Wuninitialized for struct member due to sra and TREE_NO_WARNING
       [not found] <bug-89976-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2021-04-19  7:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-06-01  8:13 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
  2021-06-26 15:17 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (4 subsequent siblings)
  9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-06-01  8:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89976

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|9.4                         |9.5

--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 9.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 9.5.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [9/10/11/12 Regression] missing -Wuninitialized for struct member due to sra and TREE_NO_WARNING
       [not found] <bug-89976-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (4 preceding siblings ...)
  2021-06-01  8:13 ` [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [9/10/11/12 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-06-26 15:17 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
  2021-06-28 20:06 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-06-26 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89976

--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> In all cases and with -O1 and above, the uninitialized read is clearly
> visible in the IL but it's suppressed because the variable (such as x$x in
> case 1) has the TREE_NO_WARNING bit set.  This appears to be regression
> introduced in GCC 4.5 in r147980.
> 
> gcc -O1 -S -Wall -std=c++14 -fdump-tree-uninit=/dev/stdout pr89976.C 
> 
> ;; Function foo (_Z3foov, funcdef_no=3, decl_uid=2098, cgraph_uid=4,
> symbol_order=3)
> 
> struct X foo ()
> {
>   int x$x;                             <<< TREE_NO_WARNING == 1
>   struct X D.2133;
> 
>   <bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]:
>   D.2133.x = x$x_2(D);                 <<< uninitialized read
>   D.2133.y = 0;
>   return D.2133;
> 
> }
> 
> 
> 
> ;; Function main (main, funcdef_no=4, decl_uid=2129, cgraph_uid=5,
> symbol_order=4) (executed once)
> 
> int main ()
> {
>   int x$x;                             <<< TREE_NO_WARNING == 1
>   struct X D.2156;
>   struct X x;
> 
>   <bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]:
>   x ={v} {CLOBBER};
>   return x$x_5(D);                     <<< uninitialized read
> 
> }

did your TREE_NO_WARNING overhaul affect this at all?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [9/10/11/12 Regression] missing -Wuninitialized for struct member due to sra and TREE_NO_WARNING
       [not found] <bug-89976-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (5 preceding siblings ...)
  2021-06-26 15:17 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-06-28 20:06 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
  2022-05-27  9:40 ` [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-06-28 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89976

--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
No, that change (r12-1804 and related) doesn't affect these cases (and wasn't
expected to).

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [10/11/12/13 Regression] missing -Wuninitialized for struct member due to sra and TREE_NO_WARNING
       [not found] <bug-89976-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (6 preceding siblings ...)
  2021-06-28 20:06 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-05-27  9:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
  2022-06-28 10:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
  2023-07-07 10:35 ` [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
  9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-27  9:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89976

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|9.5                         |10.4

--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 9 branch is being closed

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [10/11/12/13 Regression] missing -Wuninitialized for struct member due to sra and TREE_NO_WARNING
       [not found] <bug-89976-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (7 preceding siblings ...)
  2022-05-27  9:40 ` [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-06-28 10:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
  2023-07-07 10:35 ` [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
  9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-06-28 10:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89976

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|10.4                        |10.5

--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [11/12/13/14 Regression] missing -Wuninitialized for struct member due to sra and TREE_NO_WARNING
       [not found] <bug-89976-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (8 preceding siblings ...)
  2022-06-28 10:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-07-07 10:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
  9 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-07-07 10:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89976

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|10.5                        |11.5

--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 10 branch is being closed.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2023-07-07 10:35 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <bug-89976-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-06-23 21:03 ` [Bug c++/89976] missing uninitialized warning for uninitialized struct member (VOPs) msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-01 23:10 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-16 21:30 ` [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [9/10/11 Regression] missing -Wuninitialized for struct member due to sra and TREE_NO_WARNING msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-19  7:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-01  8:13 ` [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [9/10/11/12 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-26 15:17 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-28 20:06 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-27  9:40 ` [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-28 10:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-07 10:35 ` [Bug tree-optimization/89976] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).