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 795A53858D32; Fri, 13 Jan 2023 12:49:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 795A53858D32
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1673614166;
	bh=VKRFWxQJYTDGQXu6vAcIwwf6p66FYFWz2+izgH3TVyw=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=aeS6uR6sbw1ydKzL+pLHqdTV2hBRIVgeVLs1mhqYlLHT1JvAT++7/+7mgMlvk49b7
	 d6iGxuf5u6kcXZMzEhBImgHMhZoit8PysY+CWuXveEz4RiS9TYw2r1JcPoV7XYolzm
	 kXbJw2u1k8h/XQc7StjqFmu+gtaBw96TraunxAEM=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/108197] [12/13 Regression]
 -Wstringop-overread emitted on simple boost small_vector code
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 12:49:25 +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: 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: 
Message-ID: <bug-108197-4-X4mmTTBOSN@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108197-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108197-4@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=3D108197

--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Stephen from comment #2)
> Richard, are you saying this a bug in the boost code? It's not quite clear
> to me from your message. Can you be more specific about what the bug is in
> that case?

I wouldn't call it a bug in boost, it's simply unfortunate circumstances th=
at
trigger GCC diagnosing this which is likely dead code (but I see no way for
GCC to prove it is dead)=