https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103483
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8) > I think we should come up with a better plan in general for "flow sensative" > warnings really. Maybe only enable them with -O2 and above. But we keep on > getting more and more of them where it is only defined at runtime if it is > hit. > The other thing is not having it in -W -Wall. Or maybe even adding a way > (outside of -fsantizer=*) to have runtime checks inside the flow where this > happen. Just to note, I was wrong before in talking about this case (and others) because I didn't realize how much code is going to run into these issues. I think Aldy did put it correct when he wrote: "These false positives "by design" arguments are just a cop-out.".
