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 D12AB3858C00; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 19:43:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D12AB3858C00
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677181425;
	bh=uFahS5WNI+yMckvstlyrEJZ6Ck8DVHuHDb+FxT9m/pE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=vEU5OlVvjwMmgojgD89ViAuJWgYpuTx1B6/CVcCApUPiS7xJGtjm6zuH6UWGTdCe3
	 4wFXf8XoePyCtMwib60IQ3I681+5Nu2IVbvO4GGQwQxw3X6iAfRIaKiOkz98XMe+MC
	 6QtBzrEW5Hv8nuKDUsgNw4AWSVuNFHRvvf2HFgT4=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug sanitizer/108894] -fsanitize=bounds missing bounds provided by
 __builtin_dynamic_object_size()
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 19:43:45 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: sanitizer
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108894-4-qkTUDTHpgW@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108894-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108894-4@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=3D108894

--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to qinzhao from comment #7)
> 1. let -fstrict-flex-arrays=3DN to control the behavior of -fsanitize=3Db=
ounds;

I'm ok with that.

> 2. -fsanitize=3Dbounds-strict actually is an alias of -fsanitize=3Dbounds
> -fstrict-flex-arrays=3D2,  i.e, it treats [], [0] as flexible array membe=
rs,
> but treat [1], [4], as regular arrays.

Well, -fsanitize=3Dbounds-strict certainly shouldn't imply
-fstrict-flex-arrays=3D2,
it should just treat [1] and [4] (but I think it does even [0] right now) as
regular arrays for the purposes of the sanitization.=