[Bug analyzer/109437] -Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds is emitted at most once per frame.

["vultkayn at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109437

Benjamin Priour <vultkayn at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |vultkayn at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Benjamin Priour <vultkayn at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Benjamin Priour from comment #0)
> OOB refers to Out-Of-Bounds.
> 
> Curiously, it seems that if a frame was a cause for a OOB (either by
> containing the spurious code or by being a caller to such code), it will
> only emit one set of warning, rather than at each unique compromising
> statements.
> 
> 
> int consecutive_oob_in_frame ()
> {
>     int arr[] = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7};
>     int y1 = arr[9]; // only  this one is diagnosed
>     int y2 = arr[10]; // no OOB warning emitted here ...
>     int y3 = arr[50]; // ... nor here.
>     return (y1+y2+y3);
> }
> 
> int main () {
>     consecutive_oob_in_frame (); // OOB warning emitted
>     int x [] = {1,2};
>     x[5]; /* silent, probably because another set of OOB warnings
>     has already been issued with this frame being the source */
>     return 0;
> }
> 
> 
> As per David suggestion, it might be worth to implement
> pending_diagnostic::supercedes_p vfunc for the OOB checker.

Actually the cause seems to be related to
[https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109439]. Indeed, the further
warning are not emitted only after an OOB read. Consider:

int arr[] = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7};
arr[9] = 7; // 1 warning OOB
arr[15] = 12; // 1 warning OOB
int y = arr[12]; // 2 Warnings as in PR109439, terminate path
arr[11]; // No warnings

The reason is because of the poisoned_value diagnostic that is implementing the
diagnostic_path::terminate_path method