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 DA15F3853809; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 08:57:56 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DA15F3853809
From: "dangelog at gmail dot com" <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: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 08:57:56 +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: dangelog at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: WONTFIX
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-101134-4-YF19r6BmLj@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: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 08:57:57 -0000

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

--- Comment #4 from Giuseppe D'Angelo <dangelog at gmail dot com> ---
Could the warning messages then be changed to point out that the issue is o=
nly
a mere possibility? Using an "assertive" wording makes users believe that G=
CC
has positively and conclusively proved that there's something wrong, whilst
it's exactly the opposite (it didn't prove anything, and it's a false
positive).

Uninitialized warnings have this distinction and warn in two different ("ma=
y be
used uninitialized" vs "is used initialized"). If here the distinction cann=
ot
be made, AND false positives are allowed to warn, I'd really prefer the "ma=
y be
overflowing" wording than the "is overflowing" existing one.=