https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107618
Bug ID: 107618 Summary: Incorrect diagnostics when using -Og, builtin_expect(), and function attribute "warning" or "error" Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: other Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: yann at droneaud dot fr Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 53872 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53872&action=edit reproducer for -Og, __builtin_expect(), and function __attribute__((warning(""))) The code below compiled with -Og triggers a warning message that is not mandated: $ gcc -Og warning.c warning.c: In function ‘test_expect’: warning.c:26:17: warning: call to ‘size_mismatch_expect’ declared with attribute warning: size mismatch (builtin_expect) [-Wattribute-warning] 26 | size_mismatch_expect(); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ $ cat warning.c #include <stdbool.h> #include <stddef.h> #include <stdlib.h> extern void size_mismatch_nonexpect(void) __attribute__((__warning__("size mismatch"))); static bool test_nonexpect(const void *addr, size_t len) { size_t sz = __builtin_object_size(addr, 0); if (sz != (size_t)-1 && sz < len) { size_mismatch_nonexpect(); return false; } return true; } extern void size_mismatch_expect(void) __attribute__((__warning__("size mismatch (builtin_expect)"))); static bool test_expect(const void *addr, size_t len) { size_t sz = __builtin_object_size(addr, 0); if (__builtin_expect(sz != (size_t)-1 && sz < len, 0)) { size_mismatch_expect(); return false; } return true; } int main(void) { int i = 0; if (!test_nonexpect(&i, sizeof(i))) return EXIT_FAILURE; if (!test_expect(&i, sizeof(i))) return EXIT_FAILURE; return EXIT_SUCCESS; } The warning at -Og level is not expected because there's no call to the size_mismatch_expect() in the generated assembler (for x86-64): $ head warning.s .file "warning.c" .text .type test_nonexpect, @function test_nonexpect: movl $1, %eax ret .size test_nonexpect, .-test_nonexpect .type test_expect, @function test_expect: movl $1, %eax ret .size test_expect, .-test_expect .globl main .type main, @function main: endbr64 subq $24, %rsp movq %fs:40, %rax movq %rax, 8(%rsp) xorl %eax, %eax movl $0, 4(%rsp) leaq 4(%rsp), %rdi movl $4, %esi call test_nonexpect testb %al, %al jne .L11 movl $1, %eax .L5: movq 8(%rsp), %rdx subq %fs:40, %rdx jne .L12 addq $24, %rsp ret .L11: leaq 4(%rsp), %rdi movl $4, %esi call test_expect testb %al, %al je .L9 movl $0, %eax jmp .L5 .L9: movl $1, %eax jmp .L5 See also https://godbolt.org/z/KEsaavhvG Compiling at optimization level s, z, 1, 2, or 3 doesn't produce that warning. (but compiling with -O0 does produces two warnings, as expected, since calls to the two functions are emitted). Having the warning at debug optimization level makes using -Og in some complex code base challenging for no good reason when __attribute__((error(""))) is used (or -Werror=attribute-warning). It should also be noted clang doesn't generate the warning for optimization level above 0.