From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16749 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2014 11:11:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16673 invoked by uid 48); 29 Sep 2014 11:11:25 -0000 From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/63406] -Warray-bounds false positive with -O3 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 11:11:00 -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: 4.9.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg02673.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63406 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- I'd say it would still be worthwhile, if it was just a matter of XFAILing a few testcases, because the number of false positives is more important, if the warning is too unreliable, people just will ignore it completely. And people can combine it with -fsanitize=undefined, Fortran -fbounds-check etc.