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 10EEE3858403; Wed,  1 Dec 2021 01:26:38 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 10EEE3858403
From: "stsp at users dot sourceforge.net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/103502] -Wstrict-aliasing=3 doesn't warn on what is
 documented as UB
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 01:26:37 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: stsp at users dot sourceforge.net
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
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-103502-4-4CZ0LT4kZ1@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103502-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103502-4@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: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 01:26:38 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103502

--- Comment #7 from Stas Sergeev <stsp at users dot sourceforge.net> ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> -Wstrict-aliasing is kind of confusing in this regards since it's differe=
nt
> from how other warnings with numerical levels work. Normally a higher
> numerical value to a warning option means "print more warnings" but for
> -Wstrict-aliasing it means "try harder to reduce the number of warnings".

Number of warnings, or number
of false-positives?
This is what is still unclear
to me. If it reduces the number
of warnings (including valid ones,
by not applying some checks for
example), then indeed what you propose
can be done (or not done - it would
be rather straight-forward anyway).

But I had the following assumptions:
1. It reduces the number of only false-positives
2. It increases the amount of warnings by avoiding false-negatives
(i.e. by not "hiding" the warnings that lower
levels could miss)
3. The warning I've seen on lower levels was a valid one

I suppose what you propose, can
be done if 2 is not true.
I still don't know which of the
above wasn't true.=