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 483D23858C5E; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 16:34:05 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 483D23858C5E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1705941245;
	bh=QEr0uxLz+tZt5rmfeGhYKjCDvPlPQBb8uejaZ+JRiUM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=d6mp45PUN5VCmSy45Ez7yboLeLodIG49LgSFm1/iVKYjwzJmCLtoSPH8al1CZWiHi
	 eE1WUnrKl/YnuZgL9i3Cu8ms8TJRmNWMWa8dOv9+1GVK/BPXBh/3A2MAJWq8R2mTFG
	 +WDCi8/2Aqvotcb/BfbrEZcf7yLwHtNxlAfS6k4s=
From: "dimitry@unified-streaming.com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/113239] [13/14 regression] After 822a11a1e64,
 bogus -Warray-bounds warnings in std::vector
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 16:34:04 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic, missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dimitry@unified-streaming.com
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: 13.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113239-4-hG0KkY1afG@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113239-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113239-4@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=3D113239

--- Comment #8 from Dimitry Andric <dimitry@unified-streaming.com> ---
(In reply to Frank Ch. Eigler from comment #7)
> Wonder if this similar but different diagnostic is closely related:
...
> where the c++ code in question is a straight
>=20
>     vector<> foo;
>     vector<> bar;
>     foo.insert(foo.end(), bar.begin(), bar.end());

I can't reproduce the warning here with a vector<int> example, the function=
 is
entirely optimized away too. But even if I return the result, e.g.:

std::vector<int> f(std::vector<int> bar)
{
  std::vector<int> foo;
  foo.insert(foo.end(), bar.begin(), bar.end());
  return foo;
}

still no warning. But I think you might need to reduce the mutatee.cxx case.

That said, the warning you show is triggered in a different place, and the
"between 9 and 9223372036854775800 bytes" is also different.=