From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id DF2053860765; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 13:46:36 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DF2053860765 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1692366396; bh=1eq9MMvEqRCoFMR/vX+MK2IApYjBDw4ExUncqqTrht4=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=PdiHEZpHcrpeKla47NM0dGftZwzkjHtiozzgiJCS5D68D5Yhqku5o5yIX/WJ0uow+ 2YxPHr10qu3Gw3xx2Y5pxoiRyH+LuHATcu5BaJwM/s1ee3xv4rf3hHWcyNyxnXsgmU EiXgtiFU3s9fTlkgD9IxilJq9f6+Dka5lTj79630= From: "tromey at sourceware dot org" To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug build/30780] gdb: -Werror=stringop-overflow build failure Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 13:46:36 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb X-Bugzilla-Component: build X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: tromey at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D30780 Tom Tromey changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tromey at sourceware dot o= rg --- Comment #2 from Tom Tromey --- (In reply to Arsen Arsenovi=C4=87 from comment #1) > this might be a gcc bug.=20 inlined from =E2=80=98value* call_function_by_hand_dummy(value*, type*, gdb::array_view, void (*)(void*, int), void*)=E2=80=99 at infcall.c= :1239:23: Looking at the code I see: /* Add the new argument to the front of the argument list. */ new_args.reserve (args.size ()); new_args.push_back (value_from_pointer (lookup_pointer_type (values_type), struct_addr= )); new_args.insert (new_args.end (), args.begin (), args.end ()); To me this looks like an off-by-one in the reserve call. At the same time, that should be irrelevant because insert ought to grow the vector anyway. So I tend to agree that it is a compiler problem. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=