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 CE57E385840C; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 09:00:33 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CE57E385840C
From: "dcb314 at hotmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/104082] Wdangling-pointer: 2 * false positive ?
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 09:00:33 +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: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
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-104082-4-N8uqqWcMrv@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-104082-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-104082-4@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, 18 Jan 2022 09:00:33 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104082

--- Comment #2 from David Binderman <dcb314 at hotmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> >I've no idea why the warning is generated, the code looks legal to me
>=20
> The warning is generated even though the code is valid, if someone
> deferences metricp after the call to s88, the code becomes undefined.=20

A warning for valid code is IMHO really bad.

It would be a better warning if it only happened when the pointer
is dereferenced.

As is, I've got to find every occurrence of this warning and manually
check for a problem. I think 90% of the time, it going to be legal code.

> Why the warning is duplicated I have no idea.

Righto.=