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 D9A0D3858C50; Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:41:56 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D9A0D3858C50
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1682728916;
	bh=MgCeUBPmMTTRFVtAEN85gDf/tZr8txzIMEVdcieTAbs=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=WWSb4XSgVXklYDDSXxwDeIyG0szk5Z1oth5HXzPotzRBqvcwdes6PUDkvKmyK7UmJ
	 iQli8mFtP9oJhqMKoEaQZpLi1KKB2aUytw9ZiEv6Y7O54ByfVUq38dnL++PCknFcNe
	 cgTai2nPGJlU/51T0dyqUYgsbf5DwzN5wrtupFWQ=
From: "sjames at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/107087] [12 Regression]
 bits/stl_algobase.h:431: warning: 'void* __builtin_memcpy(void*, const void*,
 unsigned int)' reading between 8 and 2147483644 bytes from a region of size 4
 [-Wstringop-overread]
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:41:53 +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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic, missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-107087-4-kwa1xmolER@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107087-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107087-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107087

--- Comment #15 from Sam James <sjames at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> I think it should be fine. I would prefer to wait until 12.4 so it has mo=
re
> bake time, but that would just mean another few months of duplicate repor=
ts
> for this issue.

After chatting with jwakely, this is now on releases/gcc-12 as
r12-9486-g47880309516fd5 and we're rolling it out (the latest 12 snap) in
Gentoo. I expect everything will be fine but if it's not, you'll obviously =
hear
:)=