[Bug middle-end/85420] More -Wrestrict false positives with -fsanitize=undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85420 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Franz Sirl from comment #3) > Hmm, this maybe creduce'd too much, the original source reads more like > >strcpy(b, b + a + 10); > > which would be only UB for sure if strlen(b + a + 10) >= 9, or? If b was actually a larger array, then yes, otherwise even b + 10 would be UB.
[Bug middle-end/85420] More -Wrestrict false positives with -fsanitize=undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85420 --- Comment #3 from Franz Sirl --- Hmm, this maybe creduce'd too much, the original source reads more like strcpy(b, b + a + 10); which would be only UB for sure if strlen(b + a + 10) >= 9, or?
[Bug middle-end/85420] More -Wrestrict false positives with -fsanitize=undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85420 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- The #c0 testcase is always UB if the function is called, why doesn't it deserve a warning? Either a is initially 0, then already the first iteration invokes UB (strcpy (b, b)) and -Wrestrict is right, or a is 1 and strcpy (b, b + 1) invokes UB because it dereferences b[1] in the first iteration, or a is different and and b + a invokes UB.
[Bug middle-end/85420] More -Wrestrict false positives with -fsanitize=undefined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85420 --- Comment #1 from Franz Sirl --- Created attachment 43951 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43951=edit C++ testcase
