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 4BF283858D28; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 17:54:19 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4BF283858D28
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1669744460;
	bh=5rzkzYpmOHZ2FISilyuBtbH7v1+pAwaowfpNP43DzUg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=GllEJDqR70d3Dv/rvUxivVjzqwLxfX+SWZ5hmxrhontGLrtsr0qgzSVfwykBlIqox
	 h5wPTi8wTqxjrNbypQH5dtpfHDeovXdiwrvw74+reeJGYZeOlimV0VAOgrBDadh3QV
	 0r4H/zYb4ZqcHj8QKqv7Q905I6Wu8muG/0X48QmI=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <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: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 17:54:19 +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: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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-107699-4-a4FehTY1Nv@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107699-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107699-4@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=3D107699

--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 29 Nov 2022, carlosgalvezp at gmail dot com wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107699
>=20
> --- Comment #5 from Carlos Galvez <carlosgalvezp at gmail dot com> ---
> > is not good programming practice.
>=20
> Sure. In the real world, we have asserts for this. However this is a prob=
lem
> when we build for Release mode, in which asserts are disabled and thus th=
is
> warning pops up.

Ah, fair enough - it's that GCC now figures the possibly out-of-bounds
access.  But yes, the diagnostic itself needs improvement.  With
C++23 you could try using [[assume]] to preserve the assertion.=