[Bug sanitizer/84863] false-positive -Warray-bounds warning with -fsanitize-coverage=object-size

[arnd at linaro dot org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84863

--- Comment #3 from Arnd Bergmann  ---
The problem in the kernel then is that we then have to turn off the sanitizers
for the 'allmodconfig' build, since the recommended minimum regression testing
for kernel changes involves building a kernel with all options (including
UBSAN) enabled and checking that there are no compiler warnings.

This means we would fail to catch any build regressions in the kernel part of
UBSAN, as well as any legitimate warnings that are only seen when the
sanitizers are active.

[Bug sanitizer/84863] false-positive -Warray-bounds warning with -fsanitize-coverage=object-size

[egallager at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84863

--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager  ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Never use -Werror with -fsanitize=*, those really do cause new warnings
> because the code intentionally is less optimized and the runtime check
> themselves prevent further optimizations, so warnings that depend on
> optimizations can't work properly.

Maybe gcc should explicitly forbid the 2 of them being combined and error out
in the option-handling part of the driver instead.

[Bug sanitizer/84863] false-positive -Warray-bounds warning with -fsanitize-coverage=object-size

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84863

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Never use -Werror with -fsanitize=*, those really do cause new warnings because
the code intentionally is less optimized and the runtime check themselves
prevent further optimizations, so warnings that depend on optimizations can't
work properly.