https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118233
--- Comment #4 from Gianfranco ---
Hello, ping?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118233
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Gianfranco from comment #2)
> Hello Andrew, are you suggesting that is better to use -O2 rather than
> exporting Wno-error=stringop-overflow, right?
> Right now I downgraded the optimization lev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118233
--- Comment #2 from Gianfranco ---
Hello Andrew, are you suggesting that is better to use -O2 rather than
exporting Wno-error=stringop-overflow, right?
Right now I downgraded the optimization level, but a double confirmation is
appreciated.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118233
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
>18446744073709551608 and 18446744073709551613
-8 and -3 .
Some how GCC decided the range of new_path.len is [-8, -3].
new_path.type = 2;
new_path.len = pathlen - bMatch - 2;
memcpy(new_path.valu
