public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "david at westcontrol dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/100702] Strict overflow warning regression in gcc 8 onwards Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 12:23:59 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-100702-4-uIGja6Lhw9@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-100702-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100702 --- Comment #2 from David Brown <david at westcontrol dot com> --- Runtime diagnostics can be very useful - but they are a different kind of warning. In particular, they only show what errors have occurred during your testing - they don't show what errors /might/ occur. There is a general rule that the earlier you find your problems, the cheaper, faster and easier they are to handle. Compile-time checks are better than run-time checks when all else is equal. Clearly compile-time checks have more risk of false-positives - that's why it's important that most are optional or can be disabled by pragmas or particular code constructs. But when they /can/ be used, they are preferable. In this particular example, there is no doubt of the undefined behaviour and the infinite loop. The compiler knows about them. It would not be a false positive to issue a warning in such cases. Another limitation of runtime diagnostics is their use in embedded systems. gcc is heavily used in microcontrollers, where you often do not have much in the way of a console output, no file system, etc. Runtime diagnostic opportunities are far more limited in such cases. I fully appreciate that compile-time warnings are difficult, especially avoiding false positives, and if you say that a warning here would be too niche or too difficult to justify the effort, I am happy to accept that. But run-time diagnostics are not a replacement - they are an additional and complementary tool. Please do not consider sanitizers as a substitute for static analysis and compile-time error checking and warnings.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-20 12:23 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-05-20 11:01 [Bug c/100702] New: " david at westcontrol dot com 2021-05-20 11:33 ` [Bug c/100702] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-05-20 12:23 ` david at westcontrol dot com [this message] 2021-05-20 17:43 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-09-05 22:21 ` [Bug middle-end/100702] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-09-05 22:22 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-100702-4-uIGja6Lhw9@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).