Fix building with gcc 12

[thomasspriggs]

• Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
• Methods or procedures I have added are documented, following the guidelines provided in CODING_STANDARD.md.
• The feature or user visible behaviour I have added or modified has been documented in the User Guide in doc/cprover-manual/
• Regression or unit tests are included, or existing tests cover the modified code (in this case I have detailed which ones those are in the commit message).
• My commit message includes data points confirming performance improvements (if claimed).
• My PR is restricted to a single feature or bugfix.
• White-space or formatting changes outside the feature-related changed lines are in commits of their own.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 78.31% // Head: 78.48% // Increases project coverage by +0.17% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (cdf3d4e) compared to base (42d5ce2).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

❗ Current head cdf3d4e differs from pull request most recent head bfb968b. Consider uploading reports for the commit bfb968b to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #7542      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    78.31%   78.48%   +0.17%     
===========================================
  Files         1667     1667              
  Lines       191475   191476       +1     
===========================================
+ Hits        149958   150289     +331     
+ Misses       41517    41187     -330     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
jbmc/src/java_bytecode/remove_exceptions.cpp	95.28% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
src/cprover/cprover_parse_options.cpp	56.25% <100.00%> (-0.34%)	⬇️
src/goto-instrument/unwindset.cpp	85.84% <100.00%> (+0.41%)	⬆️
...hesizer/enumerative_loop_contracts_synthesizer.cpp	96.05% <0.00%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
src/util/std_expr.h	93.15% <0.00%> (+0.17%)	⬆️
src/util/bitvector_expr.h	97.41% <0.00%> (+0.23%)	⬆️
src/util/run.cpp	75.63% <0.00%> (+0.84%)	⬆️
src/util/type.h	98.68% <0.00%> (+2.63%)	⬆️
src/util/dstring.h	100.00% <0.00%> (+3.22%)	⬆️
src/util/ui_message.cpp	87.00% <0.00%> (+5.64%)	⬆️
... and 16 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[TGWDB]

Looks like a good alternative to #7540 , I notice the new job has significantly higher runtime than the straight gcc one. This partly due to me wanting to see the typical build time in the CI job comment as in the other jobs (obviously not really known until tested).

[thomasspriggs]

Looks like a good alternative to #7540 , I notice the new job has significantly higher runtime than the straight gcc one. This partly due to me wanting to see the typical build time in the CI job comment as in the other jobs (obviously not really known until tested).

I'd guess the longer run time will be due to the build cache being cold. I'll restart the jobs to get a better idea of the variation.

[thomasspriggs]

For my own reference the total run time for the initial run was 46m 26s, with 23m 44s of that being the build time.

[TGWDB]

Assuming the cache/timing comment can be resolved.

[thomasspriggs]

Note to self - job time is 45m 52s, 23m 28s building after the cache fix, with cold cache.

[thomasspriggs]

Note to self - Job time is 26m 43s, of which 38s is building, when cache is warm.