On 2021-08-31, 09:08 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> To refine Jonathan's answer: In cases where the index is constant
> like this one the warning could be issued even with no optimization.
> That it isn't is the result of the choice to depend on optimizations
> unconditionally. It's worth revisiti
Honza,
How do you think about proposal in this RFC? Thanks a lot.
Best Regards,
Feng
From: Martin Liška
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 9:45 PM
To: Feng Xue OS; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: JiangNing OS; Jan Hubicka
Subject: Re: [RFC] Whole Program Devirtualizatio
On 8/31/21 2:39 AM, Utkarsh Singh via Gcc wrote:
On 2021-08-31, 09:28 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 at 09:11, Utkarsh Singh wrote:
Hello GCC mailing list,
In one of my friend's C programming class, they asked him a question on
the topic of array bounds based on the follw
On 2021-08-31, 09:28 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 at 09:11, Utkarsh Singh wrote:
>>
>> Hello GCC mailing list,
>>
>> In one of my friend's C programming class, they asked him a question on
>> the topic of array bounds based on the follwing code snippet:
>>
>> #include
>>
>
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 at 09:11, Utkarsh Singh wrote:
>
> Hello GCC mailing list,
>
> In one of my friend's C programming class, they asked him a question on
> the topic of array bounds based on the follwing code snippet:
>
> #include
>
> int main(void)
> {
> char str[] = {'G' , 'C' , 'C' };
Hello GCC mailing list,
In one of my friend's C programming class, they asked him a question on
the topic of array bounds based on the follwing code snippet:
#include
int main(void)
{
char str[] = {'G' , 'C' , 'C' };
str[3] = '\0' ; /* Isn't this invalid? */
printf("%s\n
