Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jani.nikula at intel dot com
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org,
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80114
--- Comment #3 from Jani Nikula ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> Well, just adding the param and -fsanitize-address-use-after-scope does not
> enable any sanitization. One has to add -fsanitize=address to trigger real
> sanitizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80114
--- Comment #5 from Jani Nikula ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> How common is such situation and why do you use volatile keyword in
> combination with a constant index?
I didn't write the sample, I think the goal of 'volatile' w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80114
--- Comment #11 from Jani Nikula ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> May I close this as worksforme?
If the conclusion is that the magnitude of the code size bloat demonstrated in
https://godbolt.org/g/hgS817 is expected, then go a
