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 A87243858D38; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 10:52:39 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A87243858D38
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1700477559;
	bh=3HF2uMC1Bg9REqZhKEjQfPGcO6jTcHDVHJqMdTMb3BE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=gnztcApF5foYo9K7UC3reByqa1DsPgbI+H+OYjSXD/1jBHTkh3X5yZIzHFBNvww8v
	 VLqSAmJ/+4bP0ov50YG5kv9d8uX3Slc2Om3tZ9rY9MjmBl6krzE1yKhDq14NQRXJZx
	 zmh85kwm3kNstk/TVUB0iDqYVaZGim3fZfyDdcIs=
From: "ago at gentoo dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/112635] stack smash protection does not work
 when code is compiled with -O
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 10:52:39 +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: 13.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ago at gentoo dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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-112635-4-eSfhiG34E7@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-112635-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-112635-4@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=3D112635

--- Comment #2 from Agostino Sarubbo <ago at gentoo dot org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> Yep, GCC fixes the code for you by eliding 'buf'.  That's perfectly OK th=
ough
> since the code invokes undefined behavior.
>=20
> I'm inclined to close this as INVALID/WONTFIX, it isn't really a bug
> (but also not a feature you can rely on of course).

Thanks for the response.

So the question is: to have a reliable ssp, do I have to use -O0 ?=