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 C94D93858C53; Thu,  2 Mar 2023 07:53:28 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C94D93858C53
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677743608;
	bh=R5g+Rp1yvBIecKPcGr/kw18GicX0inTPtTN17F/KQ6M=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=oKbfDbnyp2DzkCEbAsv5dNj5uUkicavHxy1eJHlm6fRDNe3npqQqAoqvM81lsBBaH
	 tLSUgJ/PGq2e+cyXo2XqXxTxamQrHRq3hPGZYrvLoq1bUXZOuGZIcnmnEgnyPHVEDe
	 qDhWt84VS9qODFgxuNjuCWWBW/Ap3eEFbjAXtqqA=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/107561] [13 Regression] g++.dg/pr71488.C  and
 [g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C -m32] regression due to -Wstringop-overflow
 problem
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 07:53:28 +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: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-107561-4-f2HjUNuEAE@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107561-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107561-4@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=3D107561

--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #20)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> > > where if I understand you correctly, bar () is not allowed to modify =
*this
> > > (unless I pass it an argument to it, of course), even if *this is for
> > > example
> >=20
> > Why?  Because it is a constructor and the object isn't fully constructe=
d yet
> > at that point?
>=20
> Yes, exactly. The object's lifetime has not started until the constructor
> completes, so accessing it is only allowed in very limited ways, described
> in [basic.life] p6. However, it looks like for a non-trivial constructor =
the
> results are just unspecified, not undefined, see [class.cdtor] p2. Still,=
 I
> don't see how operator new could meaningfully do anything to an object un=
der
> construction if the object is in an unspecified state. And frankly, if
> anybody did write an operator new like that, they deserve what they get.
>=20
> Could we have a flag that says "assume operator new is not stupid"?

We certainly could add that and with that revert the effect of not making
new/delete "pure" (I'd have to look up the PR we've reverted the change
that generally made it so).=