From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 4ED70388E80D; Tue, 6 Dec 2022 09:38:49 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4ED70388E80D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1670319529; bh=Sj133BhvXbjiFDRmEHcMPTwAfwOeq+NcG50EiRk3MT8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=SEtPLx2wJvAVku9rS5NJzdkdQQvxhkQkpnh2a4xPJszIRVKHTvBqd2G2Ji1Ingc90 AZnvkjuBCeePgFHpalf/DYddJoF8Hzj2JyzzDmgqSRIPCbzaGw2p18k1yiOcLPlXVZ 1bKVyNREe3Ak+REkAuIhN/4ynEdeA3RpXN8cbbxw= From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/107986] [12/13 Regression] Bogus -Warray-bounds diagnostic with std::sort Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2022 09:38:47 +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: 12.2.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic, missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.3 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107986 Jakub Jelinek changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- At least the only increment operation(s) on TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED typed v= ar result in a range from low bound of the initial value to +INF shouldn't be = that hard I'd hope (Andrew, any suggestions where to do that)? Ditto only decre= ment operation(s) on such typed vars to [-INF, high bound of initial value]. But I agree the result should be done somewhere too.=