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 472AD3858404; Sat, 27 May 2023 01:39:24 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 472AD3858404
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1685151564;
	bh=UJfrBfPYahVk1wL0i9BifRj+cYDEkZ57xO1gsztlv88=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Ovm9Om3aQMrF3YMrKMORjhDS9owa527HxFiJMaQZ4Rd1Vt7tNqRaLYaysKxuEeDHI
	 AxluSa8O3yZwr4w186YbFL5r+mRbLYWM64FnyW/9wuaYe9ddk0Etln71iH1Ts84A4v
	 p0rPNjODnoIaoqRwlmT7RnSJv9tEMaEKQuMaEE84=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug sanitizer/109980] Bogus Wstringop-overflow and
 Wstringop-overread warnings when attribute `access` is applied to struct arg
Date: Sat, 27 May 2023 01:39:23 +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: 13.1.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia 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: everconfirmed bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on
Message-ID: <bug-109980-4-XZm3e94hLh@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109980-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109980-4@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=3D109980

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2023-05-27

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed.

Note the -O2 difference just comes from inlining.
So you could get away with just this for getting the warning:
```
typedef struct{
    int value, decoy;
} S;

[[gnu::access(read_write, 1)]]
int S_rw(S *self);

[[gnu::access(read_only, 1)]]
int S_ro(const S *self);

int S_test(S *tmps){
    return tmps[1].value && S_rw(tmps + 1) && S_ro(tmps + 1);
}
```=