public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug analyzer/94689] New: arrays of functions are not meaningful
@ 2020-04-21 12:24 pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-21 12:37 ` [Bug analyzer/94689] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 more replies)
0 siblings, 6 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-21 12:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94689
Bug ID: 94689
Summary: arrays of functions are not meaningful
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
With head of git from today (2020.04.21), gcc with -fanalyzer return non-zero
exit code for
///
*a;
b;
c() { d((void (*)())a + b); }
///
using the command line:
gcc -O2 -g -fanalyzer -Wall -I./.. -I./../include -I./../../rktio
-I../../rktio -pthread -I/usr/lib64/libffi/include -DUSE_SENORA_GC -c
foreign.i -o foreign.o
yet, if you remove the -fanalyzer flag it returns exit code 0.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/94689] arrays of functions are not meaningful
2020-04-21 12:24 [Bug analyzer/94689] New: arrays of functions are not meaningful pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-21 12:37 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-21 12:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-21 12:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94689
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Version|unknown |10.0
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed| |2020-04-21
Keywords| |rejects-valid
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Most of the command line is irrelevant to the bug, only -fanalyzer is needed.
I'm setting the rejects-valid keyword, even though the code actually has a
pedwarn and depends on a GNU extension.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/94689] arrays of functions are not meaningful
2020-04-21 12:24 [Bug analyzer/94689] New: arrays of functions are not meaningful pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-21 12:37 ` [Bug analyzer/94689] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-21 12:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-21 12:46 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-21 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94689
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Slightly cleaned up testcase (still, pedantically invalid):
typedef void (*F) (void);
void bar (F);
void
foo (void *a, int b)
{
bar ((F) a + b);
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/94689] arrays of functions are not meaningful
2020-04-21 12:24 [Bug analyzer/94689] New: arrays of functions are not meaningful pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-21 12:37 ` [Bug analyzer/94689] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-21 12:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-04-21 12:46 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-12 11:01 ` pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-04-21 12:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94689
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Guess get_or_create_mem_ref should punt or do something else for pointers to
functions, trying to create an ARRAY_TYPE of FUNCTION_TYPE (or METHOD_TYPE) is
rejected by build_array_type.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/94689] arrays of functions are not meaningful
2020-04-21 12:24 [Bug analyzer/94689] New: arrays of functions are not meaningful pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-21 12:46 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-05-12 11:01 ` pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-08-13 20:33 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-08-13 21:13 ` pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-05-12 11:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94689
--- Comment #4 from pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Unfortunately a fix for this didn't make it into 10.1. We can still not analyze
racket source code due to this issue.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/94689] arrays of functions are not meaningful
2020-04-21 12:24 [Bug analyzer/94689] New: arrays of functions are not meaningful pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2020-05-12 11:01 ` pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-08-13 20:33 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-08-13 21:13 ` pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-08-13 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94689
David Malcolm <dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm <dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The bogus "arrays of functions are not meaningful" error from -fanalyzer should
be fixed by g:808f4dfeb3a95f50f15e71148e5c1067f90a126d (for GCC 11). Marking
this as fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/94689] arrays of functions are not meaningful
2020-04-21 12:24 [Bug analyzer/94689] New: arrays of functions are not meaningful pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2020-08-13 20:33 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-08-13 21:13 ` pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-08-13 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94689
--- Comment #6 from pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks - I will rerun the static analyzer on the codebase that previously
crashed the static analyzer and report back.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-08-13 21:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-04-21 12:24 [Bug analyzer/94689] New: arrays of functions are not meaningful pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-21 12:37 ` [Bug analyzer/94689] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-21 12:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-04-21 12:46 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-05-12 11:01 ` pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-08-13 20:33 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-08-13 21:13 ` pmatos 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).