------- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-31 18:01 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > So what is this? Is the warning logic wrong or is the IR wrong? It seems to me > that IR is valid. >
Well, it probabaly isn't. I guess the second index should not ever exceed its upper bound (100 in these test cases) and it blatantly does. The proper solution (again, as suggested by Richi today) therefore most probabaly is "not to re-create ARRAY_REF for multi-dimensional arrays" at some place in folding. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37861
