X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter:	OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org CC499385802E
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org;
	dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=towo.net
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=towo.net
Subject:	Re: gcc 11 weird bug
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<248361fa-f16d-cebb-eefe-be78e09f4c10 AT towo DOT net>
	<530117425 DOT 2623944 DOT 1635332143429 AT mail DOT yahoo DOT com>
	<61db07a8-e4d2-c1f1-83ca-5ba1c2a21317 AT towo DOT net>
From:	Thomas Wolff <towo AT towo DOT net>
Message-ID:	<458d4405-1c8e-d2f3-3fd9-ce10c307587c@towo.net>
Date:	Wed, 27 Oct 2021 20:54:53 +0200
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<61db07a8-e4d2-c1f1-83ca-5ba1c2a21317@towo.net>
X-Provags-ID:	V03:K1:jJ+TS4zJUhAJDSQpxCQLnjXsh7hfaR8PC5/fv51Om9liUvCTvj9
	hptlpvDUOb4kXny2Z4lIcCZsMLZhIlwyF50Qiz6P2gU+VS93XRv382kJUm8N3EqhlYG1mWe
	VbxG85wqO+TU1brJ0Mg42Jl14sXtkFr6pqcyZHiTan22d4WFG9p0ptCwu6Y4/PhrCn9QEEL
	JuToXATUC0n7karJOIRiw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults:	notjunk:1;V03:K0:30I06vuRZII=:iglrHyHvq1cn+izz6SoGs2
	pJSCM5do/BLUINIz7Hm7bPQN1qej38HbfHLTiN9yL1DkOUuICHNLmRbW4Ssz17RQHZPWRpdvX
	AmIib1U7kkSbO8vAjUIEe66NmYbpex7oEmvwt1fEMUMky5iZ6oZjxSgHpqR8ATvcD7bRDnIex
	gwKySJyPJBRTswgMpqqI/w+uzEOyUzXMLmFnKh83Y9R9Tjq6X3i0R6NF57QxUK8WKa3dUx4Mb
	paGfUv1B6YXbzVNlpuUu4PcbNIhkeTDmidGp9CKoBjMcOmnFNG+NimOc4jfn/FwYdkSNFhkx3
	H6w6m1q+gWnm55ABtZddvacoM9AN90zFtDN2fwRUpiz+RDHkAs9frvICHuAKt2npWXyCThZ3b
	W1fvFhXtLzCOhU577F9MPSS87gCpCC8FAwHbh0zRLwnKt4fm+/lvhlYqr1GnbIsjosHs+WvtW
	LSfsIwRVUmnj4RiQJYtkvssezaNKm/SD7/5X0tDNs9JTiHp2GdnwB9wtLZTj3Chk2+JG6w0+I
	30eaF3wGOdueeU/LDI2JVj/6PROvYtsCUpnV3rQMctp31qCmAMISPD4e6WQtYG76wUgujSZH+
	RYKtoKqInTjaIMX//80VL8C9ExMos8rJExAX/mSmwhUEX5e3RkPIVrJ++jbTbgoSbNICGbqpk
	b/bWzR46TfeiE7bkShaa+DgLZw+hNgcM3glSBkK4/FvfhOnDxlNDVr3wTkaajT/zGCxY=
X-Spam-Status:	No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
	KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,
	SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version:	SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on
	server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version:	2.1.29
List-Id:	General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<https://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive:	<https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe:	<https://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To:	cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com
Sender:	"Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id 19RIuU4u014918

Am 27.10.2021 um 20:52 schrieb Thomas Wolff:
>
> Am 27.10.2021 um 12:55 schrieb Hannes Domani:
>>   Am Mittwoch, 27. Oktober 2021, 11:19:19 MESZ hat Thomas Wolff 
>> <towo AT towo DOT net> Folgendes geschrieben:
>>
>>> I noticed that mintty did not compile anymore after upgrade to gcc 11,
>>> but only on cygwin 32-bit.
>>> I tried to minimize the test case as much as possible without having 
>>> the
>>> bug vanish, to the attached standalone file.
>>> Compile this with
>>> cc -O2 -Wall -Werror m0.c
>>> and it gives a false positive warning about possible uninitialized data
>>> usage.
>>> While data flow analysis is not perfect, it is weird that this used to
>>> happen on 32 bit but not on 64 bit.
>>> Meanwhile, after updating some other packages (not sure which), but
>>> still the same gcc version, the report on the test case also happens on
>>> 64 bit, while the original, unstripped file, as part of mintty, still
>>> works without error on 64 bit, which is even weirder.
>>> I have not yet had the opportunity to test this on Linux, sorry, so I'm
>>> reporting it here.
>>> Thomas
>> If you mean this warning:
>>
>> m0.c: In function 'do_bidi':
>> m0.c:256:12: error: '*types[0]' may be used uninitialized 
>> [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>>
>> This warning is correct, because as far as gcc is concerned, count could
>> be 0, and in this case types[0] will be uninitialized (and doesn't even
>> exist, since it's declared as 'uchar types[count];').
> Thanks for the hint. I acknowledge that the analyser cannot know that 
> count > 0 here. But if types[0] exists, it cannot be unitialized so 
> the wording of the warning is not correct in this case. Anyway, this 
> leads to a less obtrusive workaround than the current one.
And, forgot to mention, it's still mysterious how the distinction 
32bit/64bit makes a difference about the warning to occur.
Kind regards
Thomas

-- 
Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -