https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94335
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.0
Blocks||88443
Summary|False positive |[10/11 Regression] False
|-Wstringop-overflow warning |positive
|with -O2|-Wstringop-overflow warning
||with -O2
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks for the small test case! The warning for reference is:
pr94335-c6.C: In function ‘int main()’:
pr94335-c6.C:8:20: warning: writing 1 byte into a region of size 0
[-Wstringop-overflow=]
8 | outputs.back() = 1;
| ~~~^~~
In file included from
/build/gcc-master/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bits/c++allocator.h:33,
from
/build/gcc-master/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/allocator.h:46,
from
/build/gcc-master/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/vector:64,
from pr94335-c6.C:3:
/build/gcc-master/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/new_allocator.h:115:41:
note: at offset 0 to an object with size 0 allocated by ‘operator new’ here
115 | return static_cast<_Tp*>(::operator new(__n * sizeof(_Tp)));
| ~~^~~
The warning in this case is actually due to a different problem, this one in
the warning infrastructure itself. The relevant IL the warning works with
(-fdump-tree-strlen) is below:
main ()
{
...
unsigned char * _48;
...
unsigned char * _59;
...
[local count: 1073741825]:
...
_59 = operator new (2);
[local count: 1073007519]:
outputs.D.19139._M_impl.D.18482._M_start = _59;
_48 = _59 + 2;
...
MEM[(value_type &)_48 + 18446744073709551615] = 1; <<< warning here
(18446744073709551615 == -2)
...
}
To determine the size of what _48 points to the warning code calls the
compute_objsize() function. It returns zero because of a design limitation: it
returns the size of the remaining space in the object (i.e., the full size of
the pointed-to object minus the offset, which is 2 in this case). The caller
has no way to increase the size it gets back by its negative offset (the large
number which is -2).
I have a rewritten the function to avoid this (and other problems with it) and
expect to have a fix for GCC 11, and possibly even for GCC 10.2.
Since this is a different problem than the originally reported bug I don't want
to use it to track it. Feel free to open a separate bug for it.
Referenced Bugs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443
[Bug 88443] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wstringop-overflow warnings
