public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "hp at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/107699] [12/13 Regression] False positive -Warray-bounds, non-existent offset reported by GCC
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 03:00:20 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-107699-4-IVDetyUqh7@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-107699-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107699

Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |hp at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Carlos Galvez from comment #2)
> Since the __last iterator cannot be known at compile time, this "if" branch
> must be generated by the compiler. But then std::sort has hardcoded this
> _S_threshold = 16, and computes a pointer __first + 16, which is known to be
> OOB.
> 
> The question is: should the compiler *really* warn in this type of code, in
> -Wall, which is the bare-minimum warning level for all projects?

All analysis of the actual test-case aside, from the setting of "NEW" and "last
confirmed" of the bugzilla entry, the answer is clearly "no". ;-)

I'm not sure it happened this time, but sometimes reporters misinterpret
gcc-folks comments about the bug, to be comments related to the validity of
their test-case, when it's about what gcc did wrong.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-11-23  3:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-15 14:10 [Bug c++/107699] New: " carlosgalvezp at gmail dot com
2022-11-16 13:34 ` [Bug tree-optimization/107699] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-16 13:34 ` [Bug tree-optimization/107699] 12/13 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-16 14:54 ` [Bug tree-optimization/107699] [12/13 " carlosgalvezp at gmail dot com
2022-11-23  3:00 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-11-29 13:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-29 13:41 ` carlosgalvezp at gmail dot com
2022-11-29 13:46 ` carlosgalvezp at gmail dot com
2022-11-29 17:54 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2022-11-29 17:58 ` carlosgalvezp at gmail dot com
2022-12-08 10:58 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-08 10:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-16 10:37 ` carlosgalvezp at gmail dot com
2023-05-08 12:26 ` [Bug tree-optimization/107699] [12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-15 13:57 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-107699-4-IVDetyUqh7@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).