https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79950
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> (In reply to David Binderman from comment #4)
> > Anyway, I think some progress could be made by finding the pattern
> >
> > for (something = 0; something <= somethingElse.size(); ++ something)
> >
> > at compile time, which is what the static analyser 'cppcheck' seems to be
> > doing.
>
> That's what I said, it would have to be a special case built in to the
> front-end.
And it has to be a lot smarter than that, as there's nothing wrong with:
for (unsigned i = 0; i <= v.size(); ++i)
std::cout << i;
It's only a problem if you do v[i] when i == v.size()
