public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm
@ 2020-09-17 16:14 clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-18 8:57 ` [Bug analyzer/97090] " clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
` (17 more replies)
0 siblings, 18 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: clyon at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-09-17 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
Bug ID: 97090
Summary: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: analyzer
Assignee: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Between r11-3230 and r11-3249 (g:052204fac580b21c967e57e6285d99a9828b8fac and
g:ecde1b0a467127714872785b9935fe7c580778f0), I've noticed:
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c (test for bogus messages, line 170)
on some arm targets.
For instance:
target arm-none-linux-gnueabi
--with-mode arm
--with-cpu cortex-a9
there is no such problem with arm-none-linux-gnueabihf and the same config
flags.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm
2020-09-17 16:14 [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-09-18 8:57 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-18 9:09 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: clyon at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-09-18 8:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #1 from Christophe Lyon <clyon at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I see random results from one run to another, so it's likely that something is
not initialized correctly.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm
2020-09-17 16:14 [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-18 8:57 ` [Bug analyzer/97090] " clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-09-18 9:09 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-18 9:12 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: clyon at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-09-18 9:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
Christophe Lyon <clyon at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target|arm |arm aarch64
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon <clyon at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Saw it on aarch64 cross-compiler too, if that's easier to reproduce.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm
2020-09-17 16:14 [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-18 8:57 ` [Bug analyzer/97090] " clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-18 9:09 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-09-18 9:12 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-28 19:57 ` [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-09-18 9:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I see on i686-linux:
XPASS: gcc.dg/analyzer/feasibility-1.c (test for warnings, line 58)
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c (test for bogus messages, line 170)
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/pr96713.c (test for excess errors)
XPASS: gcc.dg/analyzer/unknown-fns-4.c (test for warnings, line 13)
but none of this on x86_64-linux.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu
2020-09-17 16:14 [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2020-09-18 9:12 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-10-28 19:57 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-28 19:59 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-10-28 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
David Malcolm <dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm <dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 97621 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu
2020-09-17 16:14 [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2020-10-28 19:57 ` [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-10-28 19:59 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-28 20:02 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-10-28 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm <dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
PR 97621 reports it as starting on powerpc64*-linux-gnu with r11-4434, which
was a fix for non-determinism in -fanalyzer, so perhaps this is a flaky test
that the non-determinism fixes have made fail more reliably (which comment #1
suggests as well).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu
2020-09-17 16:14 [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2020-10-28 19:59 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-10-28 20:02 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-28 20:04 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-10-28 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm <dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #1)
> I see random results from one run to another, so it's likely that something
> is not initialized correctly.
I think it's due to places in -fanalyzer that iterate though hash_map and
hash_set, that are thus implicitly relying on the ordering and thus on specific
pointer values. Address-space randomization thus introduces a random element.
I've landed some fixes for this in master recently, and am testing some more
(sorting every time I use the results of such an iteration).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu
2020-09-17 16:14 [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2020-10-28 20:02 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-10-28 20:04 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-29 0:42 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-10-28 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm <dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 97411 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu
2020-09-17 16:14 [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2020-10-28 20:04 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-10-29 0:42 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-30 21:12 ` seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-10-29 0:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm <dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I tested with a cross build on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with
target==powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu after various fixes for non-determinism
(g:f635f0ce87d687b177b734968f18226d50499e75) and I'm not seeing the bogus
diagnostic at line 170.
I ran 100 iterations (with address-space randomization enabled), via this
script:
SRC_DIR=$(dirname $1)
FILENAME=$(basename $1)
rm $FILENAME.*
for i in `seq 1 100`; do
echo "iteration: $i"
./xgcc -B. -fanalyzer -c $SRC_DIR/$FILENAME -m64
-fdiagnostics-plain-output -fanalyzer -Wanalyzer-too-complex
-fanalyzer-call-summaries -fdump-analyzer -fanalyzer-call-summaries -S
-fdump-analyzer-supergraph -fdump-analyzer-exploded-graph -fdump-analyzer
-fdump-noaddr -fdump-analyzer-exploded-nodes-2
mv $FILENAME.supergraph.dot $FILENAME.$i.supergraph.dot
mv $FILENAME.analyzer.txt $FILENAME.$i.analyzer.txt
mv $FILENAME.supergraph-eg.dot $FILENAME.$i.supergraph-eg.dot
mv $FILENAME.eg.txt $FILENAME.$i.eg.txt
mv $FILENAME.eg.dot $FILENAME.$i.eg.dot
done
md5sum $FILENAME.* | sort | less
and got identical md5sums for every iteration of each of the various logs.
So perhaps the determinism fixes have removed flakiness from this test.
Is anyone still seeing that test failure on any configuration, after
g:f635f0ce87d687b177b734968f18226d50499e75 ?
(I still need to investigate the other failures reported by Jakub in comment
#3)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu
2020-09-17 16:14 [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2020-10-29 0:42 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-11-30 21:12 ` seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-10 13:48 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: seurer at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-30 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #9 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I saw
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c (test for bogus messages, line 170)
on a make check for 66dde7bc64b75d4a338266333c9c490b12d49825, r11-5583 just
moments ago on a powerpc64 BE box.
I reran just that test and it failed 3 times in a row.
Looking back at the logs on this machine it's failed on and off since r11-4323
(run on 23 October).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu
2020-09-17 16:14 [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2020-11-30 21:12 ` seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-12-10 13:48 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-03 23:24 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-12-10 13:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
CC| |ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I see the same flakyness of both gcc.dg/analyzer/unknown-fns-4.c (usually
XPASSing
XPASS: gcc.dg/analyzer/unknown-fns-4.c (test for warnings, line 13)
but PASSing once in a while) and gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c (usually
FAILing
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c (test for bogus messages, line 170)
but PASSing once in a while) on both sparc-sun-solaris2.11 and
i386-pc-solaris2.11.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu
2020-09-17 16:14 [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2020-12-10 13:48 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-03-03 23:24 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-04 12:00 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
` (6 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-03-03 23:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm <dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Re comment #10: I just tested unknown-fns-4.c and malloc-vs-local-1b.c 500
times each on a --target=i386-pc-solaris2.11 build using the script from
comment #8 and the results were identical each time. So hopefully the
nondeterminism is fixed, at least.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu
2020-09-17 16:14 [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2021-03-03 23:24 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-03-04 12:00 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2021-04-27 11:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2021-03-04 12:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #11 from David Malcolm <dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Re comment #10: I just tested unknown-fns-4.c and malloc-vs-local-1b.c 500
> times each on a --target=i386-pc-solaris2.11 build using the script from
> comment #8 and the results were identical each time. So hopefully the
> nondeterminism is fixed, at least.
Indeed: the last time I saw the flakyness in my daily builds was on 20210106.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu
2020-09-17 16:14 [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2021-03-04 12:00 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
@ 2021-04-27 11:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-28 7:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-04-27 11:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|11.0 |11.2
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 11.1 has been released, retargeting bugs to GCC 11.2.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu
2020-09-17 16:14 [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2021-04-27 11:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-07-28 7:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-30 23:18 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-07-28 7:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|11.2 |---
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu
2020-09-17 16:14 [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2021-07-28 7:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-11-30 23:18 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-01 8:51 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-30 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
David Malcolm <dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #14 from David Malcolm <dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Looking at recents posts to gcc-testresults, I don't see any reference to
"analyzer"; e.g.:
Results for 12.0.0 (DEFMODE=thumb DEFARCH=armv7-a DEFCPU=default DEFFPU=default
TESTFLAGS=) [r12-4816] (GCC) testsuite on arm-none-linux-gnueabi
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-November/732306.html
Results for 12.0.0 (DEFMODE=default DEFARCH=default DEFCPU=default
DEFFPU=default TESTFLAGS=-mthumb/-mfloat-abi=hard/-march=armv7e-m+fp)
[r12-4816] (GCC) testsuite on arm-none-eabi
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-November/732304.html
Results for 12.0.0 (DEFMODE=default DEFARCH=default DEFCPU=default
DEFFPU=default TESTFLAGS=-mabi=ilp32) [r12-4816] (GCC) testsuite on
aarch64-none-elf
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-November/732301.html
Is anyone still seeing these failures with trunk?
I'm going to go ahead and mark this as resolved; please reopen it if you're
still seeing issues.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu
2020-09-17 16:14 [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2021-11-30 23:18 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-12-01 8:51 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-02 10:50 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2021-12-02 14:06 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: clyon at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-12-01 8:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #15 from Christophe Lyon <clyon at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Indeed I don't see that anymore.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu
2020-09-17 16:14 [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2021-12-01 8:51 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-12-02 10:50 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2021-12-02 14:06 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2021-12-02 10:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
The last time I saw the failure on Solaris was on 20210106.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu
2020-09-17 16:14 [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2021-12-02 10:50 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
@ 2021-12-02 14:06 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-12-02 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #17 from David Malcolm <dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Thanks for the confirmations.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-12-02 14:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-09-17 16:14 [Bug analyzer/97090] New: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-18 8:57 ` [Bug analyzer/97090] " clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-18 9:09 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-09-18 9:12 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-28 19:57 ` [Bug analyzer/97090] gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c fails on arm and powerpc64*-linux-gnu dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-28 19:59 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-28 20:02 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-28 20:04 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-29 0:42 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-30 21:12 ` seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-12-10 13:48 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-03 23:24 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-04 12:00 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2021-04-27 11:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-28 7:04 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-30 23:18 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-01 8:51 ` clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-02 10:50 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2021-12-02 14:06 ` dmalcolm 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).