From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 00621383B420; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 19:36:56 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 00621383B420
From: "dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/101134] Bogus -Wstringop-overflow warning about
 non-existent overflow
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 19:36:56 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-101134-4-IPpu2Cyxnv@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-101134-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-101134-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 19:36:57 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101134

David Malcolm <dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm <dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
FWIW the current GCC UX guidelines:
  https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Guidelines-for-Diagnostics.html
don't talk about a distinction between "possible" vs "definite" in the word=
ing,
but it looks to me like they ought to for cases like this

...and it may already be implied by some of the stuff like "Ideally a
diagnostic should contain enough information to allow the user to make an
informed choice about whether they should care (and how to fix it), but a
balance must be drawn against overloading the user with irrelevant data.", =
in
that a "possible" vs "definite" distinction doesn't add much verbiage, but =
is
very useful in terms of clarity to the end-user, IMHO.=