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 7ADF03896C0D; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 19:02:35 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7ADF03896C0D
From: "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/98465] Bogus warning stringop-overread wuth
 -std=gnu++20 -O2 and std::string::insert
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 19:02:35 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: alias, diagnostic, missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-98465-4-HuFAcaQ6VL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-98465-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-98465-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 19:02:35 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D98465

--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #10)
> What about fixing the -g interaction?  Much like how -g shouldn't affect
> code generation, it probably shouldn't be affecting warnings like this.
>=20
> There may be more we can/should do here, but that seems like a good place=
 to
> start.

Agreed, I'm looking into that too.  Fixing it won't avoid the warning thoug=
h,
just make it more consistent (see comment #4).=