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 65C6D3858CDB; Sat, 30 Mar 2024 17:44:48 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 65C6D3858CDB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1711820688;
	bh=nq+GHGHL5jOvm2amI+ipNgRREo6wADvxEWmbCdD4YRM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=TKEkhslJLpr0rB7iQ3GHc1zSpMDtntY8NyWUqHFs9gKXkcMBVF4wCKTHgwIFmSB8x
	 I6F7cPclnBjlUDbsmQJl6h1Hg2qfy9fU+E8j7W1A50xuO0pUnAZxmIhMKryLgXom/B
	 vFVlAASNHkQG3Kjzn1ULNpy1JGsLP3qIJW0+6jKc=
From: "egallager at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/66487] sanitizer/warnings for lifetime DSE
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 17:44:44 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: egallager 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: 
Message-ID: <bug-66487-4-d0HyylbRPa@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-66487-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-66487-4@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=3D66487

--- Comment #29 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #28)
> The bug is about the issue of lacking diagnostics, it should be fine to m=
ake
> note of various approaches to remedy the problem in one bug report.
>=20

OK, well, in this case, I'd like to make this the bug report for MSan suppo=
rt
in general, too, then; it's documented here:
https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/MemorySanitizer

(In reply to Martin Li=C5=A1ka from comment #20)
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #19)
> > Martin, I suppose the sanitizer bits can be tracked as enhancement and =
not
> > regression. It is a firefox bug so I suppose we can declare this a
> > non-regression.
>=20
> Sure, maybe I would return to support of MSAN in GCC 7.

Maybe for GCC 14 now?=