* [Bug middle-end/93873] gcc or lto-wrapper does not consider individual bitfield values on static analysis and instead tests the whole value of all bitfield bits combined
[not found] <bug-93873-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2020-03-22 9:44 ` emil.fihlman at aalto dot fi
2020-03-22 9:45 ` emil.fihlman at aalto dot fi
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: emil.fihlman at aalto dot fi @ 2020-03-22 9:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93873
--- Comment #4 from Emil Fihlman <emil.fihlman at aalto dot fi> ---
Problem persists with gcc 9.3, though it's no longer dependent on the bitfield.
https://godbolt.org/z/RGu6hu
If a free is behind a flag.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/93873] gcc or lto-wrapper does not consider individual bitfield values on static analysis and instead tests the whole value of all bitfield bits combined
[not found] <bug-93873-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-03-22 9:44 ` [Bug middle-end/93873] gcc or lto-wrapper does not consider individual bitfield values on static analysis and instead tests the whole value of all bitfield bits combined emil.fihlman at aalto dot fi
@ 2020-03-22 9:45 ` emil.fihlman at aalto dot fi
2020-03-22 10:13 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-14 23:18 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: emil.fihlman at aalto dot fi @ 2020-03-22 9:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93873
--- Comment #5 from Emil Fihlman <emil.fihlman at aalto dot fi> ---
If a free is behind a flag gcc and the allocation is also behind a flag, gcc
should not complain.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/93873] gcc or lto-wrapper does not consider individual bitfield values on static analysis and instead tests the whole value of all bitfield bits combined
[not found] <bug-93873-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-03-22 9:44 ` [Bug middle-end/93873] gcc or lto-wrapper does not consider individual bitfield values on static analysis and instead tests the whole value of all bitfield bits combined emil.fihlman at aalto dot fi
2020-03-22 9:45 ` emil.fihlman at aalto dot fi
@ 2020-03-22 10:13 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-02-14 23:18 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-03-22 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93873
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
It is not going to be fixed in GCC 9, only in 10, where it should be fixed
already.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* [Bug middle-end/93873] gcc or lto-wrapper does not consider individual bitfield values on static analysis and instead tests the whole value of all bitfield bits combined
[not found] <bug-93873-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2020-03-22 10:13 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-02-14 23:18 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-02-14 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93873
Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Known to work| |10.2.0, 11.0
Known to fail| |6.3.0, 7.5.0, 8.4.0, 9.3.0
CC| |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Blocks| |99098
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I can reproduce the warning with versions up to 9, at -O2 (or -O3) and both
with and without -flto. GCC 10 doesn't issue it. Bisection points to r276416
as the fix.
Referenced Bugs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99098
[Bug 99098] invalid/missing -Wfree-nonheap-object warnings
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread