From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-332980-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 2177 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2010 04:49:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 2167 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 04:49:15 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 04:49:13 +0000
From: "fw at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/41874] Incorrect "dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules" warning
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: fw at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
In-Reply-To: <bug-41874-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-41874-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 04:49:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-10/txt/msg00369.txt.bz2
Message-ID: <20101005044900._vGOeN2jhXnTFRCwccz49rwUwb1iU1X7nkj4wTdaLq0@z>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874

Florian Weimer <fw at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |fw at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #8 from Florian Weimer <fw at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-10-05 04:48:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)

> The general problem is that alias analysis is hard, thus follows that proper
> warnings are equally hard.

Note that it says "will break strict-aliasing rules", not "might break
strict-aliasing rules" (which also exists). I think the user can reasonably
expect that the "will break" variant is actually true.