public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/99578] [11/12 Regression] gcc-11 -Warray-bounds or -Wstringop-overread warning when accessing a pointer from integer literal
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 10:49:01 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-99578-4-pTbrHjQLuZ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-99578-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578

--- Comment #33 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #31)
> As I mentioned in comment #25 and elsewhere, I envisioned that code would
> annotate these hardwired addresses somehow, ideally using an attribute like
> addr or the Keil compiler's at (see below), or until one is added, using a
> workaround like your absolute_pointer().  I realize it means work, but I
> believe with the attribute the gain in type safety would make it worthwhile.
> Is that something the kernel developers could be trained to start using? 
> (In full disclosure, I don't expect to have the cycles to work on the
> attribute anytime soon.)

Whether or not it's reasonable to expect working code to be transitioned to a
new feature,  in the absence of such a feature (and no likelihood of it
appearing any time soon) we should not be giving warnings for this code.

The idea that it's zero-cost or zero-risk to go around sprinkling casts in
working code that passes all its tests is foolish. Every cast added to silence
a false positive warning has a risk of introducing a new problem and hiding a
real bug in future.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-03-17 10:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-13 14:23 [Bug c/99578] New: " arnd at linaro dot org
2021-03-13 20:40 ` [Bug c/99578] " msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-13 21:40 ` arnd at linaro dot org
2021-03-13 22:38 ` arnd at linaro dot org
2021-03-14  0:57 ` [Bug middle-end/99578] " msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-14 11:54 ` arnd at linaro dot org
2021-03-14 21:25 ` arnd at linaro dot org
2021-03-15  8:38 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-15 19:57 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-03-15 20:24 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-21 19:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-04-28 16:11 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-05-01 15:08 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
2021-05-19 15:07 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-05-19 18:01 ` andrew.cooper3 at citrix dot com
2021-05-19 19:19 ` andrew.cooper3 at citrix dot com
2021-05-19 20:48 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-05-30 23:40 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-08-24 16:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-14 18:46 ` [Bug middle-end/99578] [11/12 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-19 11:36 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-21 13:53 ` pmenzel+gcc at molgen dot mpg.de
2022-01-14 15:57 ` pmenzel+gcc at molgen dot mpg.de
2022-01-21 13:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-23 10:36 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-23 12:53 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-23 16:50 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-23 16:57 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-23 17:55 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-07 19:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-07 20:53 ` goswin-v-b at web dot de
2022-03-16 19:49 ` kees at outflux dot net
2022-03-16 21:15 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-16 23:10 ` jwerner at chromium dot org
2022-03-17 10:49 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-03-17 10:53 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-17 12:52 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-18 18:02 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-18 18:05 ` [Bug middle-end/99578] [11 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-19 11:02 ` goswin-v-b at web dot de
2022-03-29  5:54 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-30  8:04 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-30  8:16 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-99578-4-pTbrHjQLuZ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).