On 2/8/21 3:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > > I think the underlying problem is the same. We're getting a size > that doesn't correspond to what's actually being accessed, and it > happens because of the virtual inheritance. In pr97595 Jason > suggested to use the decl/type size inequality to identify this > case but I think we could have just as well used DECL_ARTIFICIAL > instead. At least the test cases from pr97595 both pass with > this change. OK. I guess it's a minor question of semantics between pr97595 and pr98266 being the same. But I think we can put that behind us now. I think the big question is whether or not DECL_ARTIFICIAL is the right way to detect these cases, or if there simply isn't a way as one message from Jason seems to imply. Jeff
- Re: [PATCH] avoid -Warray-bounds checks... Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
- Re: [PATCH] avoid -Warray-bounds ch... Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
- Re: [PATCH] avoid -Warray-bound... Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
- PING [PATCH] avoid -Warray-... Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
- Re: PING [PATCH] avoid -War... Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
- Re: PING [PATCH] avoid -War... Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
- Re: PING [PATCH] avoid -War... Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
- Re: PING [PATCH] avoid -War... Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
- Re: PING [PATCH] avoid -War... Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
- Re: PING [PATCH] avoid -War... Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches
- Re: [PATCH] avoid -Warray-bounds ch... Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
- Re: [PATCH] avoid -Warray-bound... Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
- Re: [PATCH] avoid -Warray-bounds checks for ... Jeff Law via Gcc-patches