From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 4A1FA3858D39; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 08:56:20 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4A1FA3858D39 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1679993780; bh=+uxd7fxQc48akQZLLoMML1BxpqzxhFStLU+/0CHVkkM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=tJ4T6j9pg7gizbip26nmycLberFJqN6zyR56qAzEKNyiPDs/EtRm3G+oYyF2HmN5c 8oFgzBSVa1XadASTdGY3zZurZsuOq0sBg32DrO9vq2v6c2utrQCWixI88gDNDJUrkg nbMSmRF8S0xMYgnCRNy7oPuFNUuT+vUkDwyyu6AA= From: "amodra at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug sanitizer/109308] False positive store to address 0x62600000016c with insufficient space for an object of type 'int' since r12-6030-g422f9eb7011b76c1 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 08:56:19 +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: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: amodra at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID 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: 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=3D109308 Alan Modra changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |amodra at gmail dot com --- Comment #4 from Alan Modra --- I agree the code is undefined, but "store to address 0x0000004172b0 with insufficient space for an object of type 'long int'" is a lie. There plain= ly *is* sufficient space at that address. It would be nice to diagnose the actual undefined behaviour. As a compiler developer you might have the mindset of "it's undefined code so the compiler can do anything", but that argument strikes me as disingenuous when we are talking about -fsanitize=3Dundefined!=