From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 6D60D3858282; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 15:33:56 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6D60D3858282 From: "dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug analyzer/106620] Incorrectly thinks execution can continue after a return statement Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 15:33:50 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: analyzer X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.1.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: WORKSFORME X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status resolution Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 15:33:56 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106620 David Malcolm changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- Thanks for filing this. Looking at the Compiler Explorer link, the false positive occurs with gcc 1= 1.1 at -O3. With gcc 11.1 and gcc 11.3 the false +ve occurs at -O1 and above. With gcc 12.1 and trunk, the false +ve does not occur. I've made lots of implementation changes to -fanalyzer in gcc 12 in beyond = that I don't intend to backport to gcc 11, so I'm going to mark this as resolved with "WORKSFORME". Feel free to reopen it if you're able to reproduce it with gcc 12 or later; thanks again for filing this.=