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 2A04E386EC55; Wed,  7 Apr 2021 07:29:07 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2A04E386EC55
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug sanitizer/99945] missing maybe-uninitialized warning when using
 a cleanup function
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 07:29:07 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: sanitizer
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth 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-99945-4-KaxSw5tUlB@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-99945-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-99945-4@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, 07 Apr 2021 07:29:07 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99945

--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> Confirmed.  The warning sees the IL below.  It's not the same as pr83382
> because there's no call to a UBSAN function.  The warning here is due to a
> direct use of a GCC-internal variable (introduced in tree-nested.c).  The
> variable has the DECL_ARTIFICIAL bit set, so maybe also disabling the
> warning for variables with that bit might make sense.

Sure not, the 'FRAME' variable is artificial but its members refer to the
parent frame user variables which we do want to warn on.

IIRC Eric had some patches to dissect 'FRAME' again after inlining to help
optimization and diagnostics.=