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 894C03858C55; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 17:06:54 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 894C03858C55
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1665680814;
	bh=VTazGS4fBgFtVKJ2z+Z88w7IcbnTH6b13etnfj3Lr7c=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ev2kJfCBLvaqpE9l2rwHYos42SkjhkYnytSkT59Od1dt2vVXZJM7VxHYoZAqsXZlG
	 p2e9l3KxrJhicL6YkBI87CTW74ubRkldZn7+H7a8wwFp3gRwMUsEKkrpv0UGPdI64I
	 ggPbHgYF6a56EM5JGI7Zt7igQPrTUaJeomSCtX6w=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/107252] False positive stringop-overflow,
 warning disappears if I remove unrelated code!
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 17:06:54 +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
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia 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-107252-4-fJ219ozCcR@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107252-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107252-4@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=3D107252

--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Carlos Galvez from comment #2)
> To clarify, even removing things from the second function has an impact on
> the first function (which is where the warning comes from). Shouldn't both
> functions be independent?

No because inlining heuristics takes into account the whole translation uni=
t so
removing things changes how much inlining happens or where it happens (etc.=
).

The diagnostic with the warning is dependent on the inlining and optimizati=
on.

Someone will need to look into the debug dumps to understand what exactly is
going on though.=