https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117204
Jeffrey A. Law <law at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I think the minimized test is bogus. Note:
struct vector : _Vector_base<_Tp, _Alloc> {
typedef _Vector_base<_Tp, _Alloc> _Base;
typedef _Base::pointer iterator;
using _Base::_M_impl;
vector();
vector(vector &) { _M_impl._M_finish = 0; }
__alloc_traits<typename _Base::_Tp_alloc_type>::reference back() {
iterator __trans_tmp_5 = _M_impl._M_finish, __trans_tmp_2 = __trans_tmp_5;
return *(__trans_tmp_2 - 1);
}
};
Note the assignment to _M_impl._M_finish, which is then assigned to
__trans_tmp_5 which is then assigned to __trans_tmp_2 and then dereferenced.
That corresponds to this chunk of IL:
last = MEM[(const struct tdr_t &)0B + 18446744073709551592];
That's going to trigger the out of bounds access warning, but I think it's
warranted in this case.
