https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117180
--- Comment #5 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 59423
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59423&action=edit
reduced.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117180
--- Comment #4 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 59422
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59422&action=edit
reduced.i
First cut, will run it more.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117180
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117180
--- Comment #3 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Looks like that my RFC patch currently has bugs that cannot locate the event
accurately.
need more study here to see how to locate the conditional event accurately.
I need to reduce this test ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117180
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
With LTO, the output is different:
```
src/feature/nodelist/networkstatus.c: In function
‘networkstatus_set_current_consensus’:
src/feature/nodelist/networkstatus.c:2145:41: warning: array subscript 2 is
above a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117180
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Created attachment 59364
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59364&action=edit
networkstatus.i.xz
Reproduce with `gcc -c ./networkstatus.i -std=c23 -O2 -Warray-bounds`.
