[Bug tree-optimization/107038] [13 Regression] Bogus -Wstringop-overflow= since r13-2789-gb40b3035879cf695
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107038 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- > That looks like unpatched elfutils. I know you mentioned[1] that you're > using the latest elfutils but can you please confirm again? Or maybe > incorrect preprocessed file? > > [1] https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29614#c2 Whoops, you are right. I've got 2 tested projects where only one contains the latest elfutils snapshot.
[Bug tree-optimization/107038] [13 Regression] Bogus -Wstringop-overflow= since r13-2789-gb40b3035879cf695
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107038 --- Comment #5 from Siddhesh Poyarekar --- (In reply to Siddhesh Poyarekar from comment #4) > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2) > > > I assume this is elfutils #29614? > > > > Yes. > > > > Please take a look at the original unreduced testcase I attached here. > > That looks like unpatched elfutils. I know you mentioned[1] that you're > using the latest elfutils but can you please confirm again? Or maybe > incorrect preprocessed file? > > [1] https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29614#c2 OK maybe that's irrelevant from the gcc perspective because this is basically warning on unreachable code, which we know tends to happen sometimes. The comment is mainly for the elfutils issue you're facing.
[Bug tree-optimization/107038] [13 Regression] Bogus -Wstringop-overflow= since r13-2789-gb40b3035879cf695
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107038 --- Comment #4 from Siddhesh Poyarekar --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2) > > I assume this is elfutils #29614? > > Yes. > > Please take a look at the original unreduced testcase I attached here. That looks like unpatched elfutils. I know you mentioned[1] that you're using the latest elfutils but can you please confirm again? Or maybe incorrect preprocessed file? [1] https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29614#c2
[Bug tree-optimization/107038] [13 Regression] Bogus -Wstringop-overflow= since r13-2789-gb40b3035879cf695
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107038 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- Just a quick note from what I see in GDB. The warning is issued by the 2nd run of the waccess pass (-fdump-tree-waccess2) for the following statement in bb 22 in pread(): iftmp.21_88 = __pread_alias (_50, _82, _81, _79); _81's range reported by range_query::range_of_expr (vr, exp, stmt) is [58, ULONG_MAX], matching the range in the warning. A partial output of debug_ranger() for the function is below. I must be reading it wrong because I don't see what the range above is derived from. === BB 19 Imports: recvd_78 _83 Exports: _51 recvd_78 recvd.17_80 _83 _94 _116 _125 _83 [irange] UNDEFINED [local count: 169058114]: if (_83 == 18446744073709551615) goto ; [34.00%] else goto ; [66.00%] 19->22 (T) _83 : [irange] UNDEFINED 19->20 (F) _83 : [irange] UNDEFINED === BB 20 Imports: _81 _83 Exports: _81 _83 _85 _86 _87 _85 : _81(I) _83(I) _86 : _81(I) _83(I) _85 _87 : _81(I) _83(I) _85 _86 _81 [irange] long unsigned int VARYING _83 [irange] long unsigned int VARYING [local count: 280636469]: _85 = _81 <= _83; _86 = (int) _85; _87 = __builtin_constant_p (_86); if (_87 != 0) goto ; [50.00%] else goto ; [50.00%] _86 : [irange] int [0, 1] NONZERO 0x1 _87 : [irange] int [0, 0] NONZERO 0x0 20->21 (T) _81 : [irange] UNDEFINED 20->21 (T) _83 : [irange] UNDEFINED 20->21 (T) _85 : [irange] UNDEFINED 20->21 (T) _86 : [irange] UNDEFINED 20->21 (T) _87 : [irange] UNDEFINED 20->24 (F) _86 : [irange] int [0, 1] NONZERO 0x1 20->24 (F) _87 : [irange] int [0, 0] NONZERO 0x0 === BB 21 Imports: recvd_78 _81 _83 Exports: _51 recvd_78 recvd.17_80 _81 _83 _94 _116 _125 _81 [irange] UNDEFINED _83 [irange] UNDEFINED [local count: 140318235]: if (_81 <= _83) goto ; [50.00%] else goto ; [50.00%] 21->22 (T) _81 : [irange] UNDEFINED 21->22 (T) _83 : [irange] UNDEFINED 21->23 (F) _81 : [irange] UNDEFINED 21->23 (F) _83 : [irange] UNDEFINED === BB 22 [local count: 127638877]: iftmp.21_88 = __pread_alias (_50, _82, _81, _79); goto ; [100.00%]
[Bug tree-optimization/107038] [13 Regression] Bogus -Wstringop-overflow= since r13-2789-gb40b3035879cf695
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107038 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- > I assume this is elfutils #29614? Yes. Please take a look at the original unreduced testcase I attached here.
[Bug tree-optimization/107038] [13 Regression] Bogus -Wstringop-overflow= since r13-2789-gb40b3035879cf695
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107038 --- Comment #1 from Siddhesh Poyarekar --- recvd is uninitialized and it seems to be preventing optimization of the fortify macro one way or for some reason. I can take a look at why the condition does not get folded away but a reproducer without undefined behaviour may be more persuasive. I assume this is elfutils #29614?
[Bug tree-optimization/107038] [13 Regression] Bogus -Wstringop-overflow= since r13-2789-gb40b3035879cf695
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107038 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Target Milestone|--- |13.0
