public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:44:48 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-101134-4-js42744oNR@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-101134-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101134 --- Comment #2 from Giuseppe D'Angelo <dangelog at gmail dot com> --- As I said, > Adding enough __builtin_unreachable() for that condition removes the warnings, but it should not be necessary. I disagree with the resolution, though. While I understand that GCC cannot reason globally, the warning message itself is miselading, as it's worded in a way that makes the user think that GCC has *conclusevely* proven the existence of a problem, while in fact GCC is wrong. Specifically, this statement: > <source>:75:31: warning: writing 1 byte into a region of size 0 [-Wstringop-overflow=] At least, I'd like a less strong wording if GCC cannot *prove* this but only estimate it (e.g. "warning: possible string overflow (writing 1 byte...)"). Ideally, even, having two separate warnings or two separate warning levels (overflow proved / overflow just estimated) so one can enable only one of the two if needed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-21 16:44 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-06-19 9:52 [Bug middle-end/101134] New: " dangelog at gmail dot com 2021-06-21 16:10 ` [Bug middle-end/101134] " msebor at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-06-21 16:44 ` dangelog at gmail dot com [this message] 2021-06-21 20:40 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-06-22 8:57 ` dangelog at gmail dot com 2021-06-22 15:27 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-06-22 16:34 ` dangelog at gmail dot com 2021-06-23 19:56 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-06-24 14:07 ` dangelog at gmail dot com 2021-06-24 17:05 ` segher at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-06-24 17:57 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-06-24 19:36 ` dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-06-24 21:18 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-06-24 22:18 ` dangelog at gmail dot com 2022-03-17 10:18 ` redi 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-101134-4-js42744oNR@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).