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 3DCEA3858039; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 22:55:49 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3DCEA3858039
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/104017] unexpeted -Warray-bounds popping a
 fixed number of std::deque elements
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 22:55:49 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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-104017-4-pfee9e0DDK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-104017-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-104017-4@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, 27 Jan 2022 22:55:49 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104017

--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)

> This test case also triggers a warning, for the same reason: GCC can't
> determine the relationship between a deque's internal node pointers and t=
he
> result of std::deque::size() (which is a function of the node pointers).

Is the warning in this case coming from this function?

      void
      pop_back() _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT
      {
        __glibcxx_requires_nonempty();
        if (this->_M_impl._M_finish._M_cur
            !=3D this->_M_impl._M_finish._M_first)
          {
            --this->_M_impl._M_finish._M_cur;
            _Alloc_traits::destroy(_M_get_Tp_allocator(),
                                   this->_M_impl._M_finish._M_cur);
          }
        else
          _M_pop_back_aux();
      }

I don't see what size() has got to do with anything, we explicitly check th=
at
_M_cur is not the start of the node.

With -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS the first line of the function expands to:

  __glibcxx_assert(!this->empty())

but it still warns.

What else are we supposed to do there to let the compiler know the object w=
e're
destroying is valid? Do we need to add a third way to check the deque is not
empty?=