https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101134
--- Comment #2 from Giuseppe D'Angelo <dangelog at gmail dot com> --- As I said, > Adding enough __builtin_unreachable() for that condition removes the > warnings, but it should not be necessary. I disagree with the resolution, though. While I understand that GCC cannot reason globally, the warning message itself is miselading, as it's worded in a way that makes the user think that GCC has *conclusevely* proven the existence of a problem, while in fact GCC is wrong. Specifically, this statement: > <source>:75:31: warning: writing 1 byte into a region of size 0 > [-Wstringop-overflow=] At least, I'd like a less strong wording if GCC cannot *prove* this but only estimate it (e.g. "warning: possible string overflow (writing 1 byte...)"). Ideally, even, having two separate warnings or two separate warning levels (overflow proved / overflow just estimated) so one can enable only one of the two if needed.
