On Monday 26 September 2011, Matthew Gretton-Dann wrote:
> As far as I understand it -Warray-bounds should be emitting a warning
> for this case, but PR31227 seemed to be about removing these warnings.
>
> The PR comments do not explain why the array accesses are valid and I'm
> hoping someone ca
...@gcc.gnu.org'; 'rgue...@gcc.gnu.org';
Matthew Gretton-Dann
Subject: A question about detecting array bounds for case Warray-
bounds-3.c
Hi,
For case gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-3.c, obviously it is an
invalid C program, because the last iterations of all the loops cause
the acce
;; 'muel...@gcc.gnu.org'; 'rgue...@gcc.gnu.org';
>> Matthew Gretton-Dann
>> Subject: A question about detecting array bounds for case Warray-
>> bounds-3.c
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> For case gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-3.c, obviously it is an
>&g
Dann
> Subject: A question about detecting array bounds for case Warray-
> bounds-3.c
>
> Hi,
>
> For case gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-3.c, obviously it is an
> invalid C program, because the last iterations of all the loops cause
> the access of arrays is bey
Hi,
For case gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-3.c, obviously it is an invalid
C program, because the last iterations of all the loops cause the access of
arrays is beyond the max size of corresponding array declarations. The
condition of checking upper bound should be "<" rather than "<=".
Rig
