https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102969
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Host|powerpc64-linux-gnu, |
|powerpc64le-linux-gnu |
Last reconfirmed| |2021-10-27
Component|other |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
Target|powerpc64-linux-gnu, |powerpc64{,le}-linux-gnu,
|powerpc64le-linux-gnu |aarch64-linux-gnu
Keywords| |diagnostic
Build|powerpc64-linux-gnu, |
|powerpc64le-linux-gnu |
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed. I noticed this too.
I debugged it a little bit too. The reason why it shows up in C++98 only is
because C++98 does the size check slightly different and does not throw an
exception in the case of an overflow.
Also You need all 3 checks in the code to get the warning in the first place,
that is:
ptrdiff_t r_dmin_dmax = SR (DIFF_MIN, DIFF_MAX);
T (S (1), new int16_t[r_dmin_dmax]);
T (S (2), new int16_t[r_dmin_dmax + 1]);
T (S (9), new int16_t[r_dmin_dmax * 2 + 1]);
Have just the one which warns does not cause a warning. I didn't look further
than that.
