https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63197
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63197
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jan-Benedict Glaw from comment #2)
> With today's binutils snapshot, there's a gas_assert in front of it, which
> silences this bogus warning. That needs to be reverted to test GCC wrt. this
> is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80202
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80202
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80202
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80202
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80202
Bug ID: 80202
Summary: Spurious warning "array subscript is below array
bounds" with if-statement and char to unsigned int
conversion
Product: gcc
Vers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61520
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63197
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-linux
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63197
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63197
--- Comment #2 from Jan-Benedict Glaw ---
With today's binutils snapshot, there's a gas_assert in front of it, which
silences this bogus warning. That needs to be reverted to test GCC wrt. this
issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63197
Jan-Benedict Glaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.9.1 |5.0
--- Comment #1 from Jan-Benedict
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63197
Bug ID: 63197
Summary: tc-m68k.c: Wrong warning "array subscript is below
array bounds"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61520
--- Comment #1 from Sergei Golubchik ---
A slightly modified version:
static const int powers10[]= { 0, 1, 10, 100 };
int remove_leading_zeroes(unsigned int decimals, unsigned int var)
{
decimals%= 2;
while (var < powers10[decimals
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61520
Bug ID: 61520
Summary: False warning: array subscript is below array bounds
(-Warray-bounds -O -ftree-vrp -funroll-loops)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42124
--- Comment #4 from Laszlo Papp 2012-10-15
12:42:50 UTC ---
Great, thank you! :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42124
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|gcc-
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 10:10 ---
Without -fwrapv I get
> ./cc1 -quiet -O2 -Wall t3.i
t3.i: In function 'foo':
t3.i:8:5: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when assuming that
(X + c) < X is always false
and with -fwrapv and the fix fo
--- Comment #2 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-02-08 21:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=19826)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19826&action=view)
original, unreduced testcase
Preprocessed gcc/fold-const.c - this problem blocks bootstrap with
BOOT_CFLAGS="-O2 -fwra
--- Comment #1 from zsojka at seznam dot cz 2010-02-08 21:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=19825)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19825&action=view)
reduced testcase
While this may look artificial, it was reduced from gcc/fold-const.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
: In function ‘foo’:
testcase.c:9:9: warning: array subscript is below array bounds
--
Summary: invalid "warning: array subscript is below array bounds"
with -fwrapv
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #2 from djszapi at archlinux dot us 2009-11-20 19:59 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> D.2919_10 = C39PAT[0][-2147483647];
>
> Well there is an array subscript is below array bounds.
>
> It is hard for GCC to figure out that is dead code really without full
> unrolling ...
>
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-20 19:12 ---
D.2919_10 = C39PAT[0][-2147483647];
Well there is an array subscript is below array bounds.
It is hard for GCC to figure out that is dead code really without full
unrolling ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot o
guages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --enable-threads=posix
--mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --enable-__cxa_atexit
--disable-multilib --libdir=/usr/lib --libexecdir=/usr/lib --enable-clocale=gnu
--disable-libstdcxx-pch --with-tune=generic
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.4.1 (GCC)
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-06 11:21 ---
This is FIXED in GCC 4.4. There may be a 4.3.4 release but this is not a
regression and nobody seems interested in investigating whether it can be fixed
with a minimal patch. So I am closing it as FIXED.
If you can rep
--- Comment #3 from gcc at axel-naumann dot de 2009-07-06 10:59 ---
OK, I didn't know that the branch is closed, nor that it involves extensive
changes. Sorry it took me so long to find this! I can of course use #pragma GCC
diagnostic ignored "-Warray-bounds" if needed.
--
http://gc
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-07-06 09:57
---
I'm afraid it's highly unlikely that this will be fixed in 4_3-branch... To the
best of my knowledge, fixing it involved a few rather invasive patches and the
branch is close to its end of life...
--
http:
--- Comment #1 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-07-06 09:32 ---
Ditto here on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu. -m32 gives the warning, -m64 does
not.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40658
Compiling the following code snippet with "g++ -m32 -S -Wall -O2 t.cc" on a
64bit machine issues a warning
t.cc: In static member function 'static void
NewDelFunctionsT::deleteArray_T(void*) [with T = EcalTPGLut]':
t.cc:12: warning: array subscript is below array bounds
This
LENGTH];
W8 data[MSG_MAX_DATALEN]; /* 4- or 8-octet alignment */
} MSGBUF_T;
Should the code snippet produce the warning:
warning: array subscript is below array bounds
And why if should?
>From my point of view type cast is more prioritized operation, thus
it should be ok. But seems, that g
--- Comment #7 from at dot wufei at gmail dot com 2009-06-03 05:07 ---
Did the patch fixes the second case (struct B)? It still warns on 4.3 branch,
but no problem on 4.4.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35593
--- Comment #17 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-31 17:41 ---
The offending optimization in forwprop2 seems to have been disabled on the
trunk. I also just checked in a patch to simplify the code generated for new,
though it doesn't seem to have been the problem in this PR.
-
--- Comment #16 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-31 17:39 ---
Subject: Bug 36633
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jul 31 17:38:08 2008
New Revision: 138425
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=138425
Log:
PR c++/36633
* init.c (build_new_1): Don't conve
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Known to work||4.3.1
--- Comment #15 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-11 21:36
---
I'm tentatively recategorizing as middle-end, if I'm missing something just
override me...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #14 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-07-10 14:58 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] warning "array subscript is
below array bounds" on delete [] with -O2, -Wall
rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> Can the FE mark this array-access with TREE_NO_WARNING?
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-07-10 14:07 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] warning "array subscript is
below array bounds" on delete [] with -O2, -Wall
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #12 from paol
--- Comment #12 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-10 13:53
---
The warning is bogus, for sure. The issue is how / where to fix it. Apparently
it comes from check_array_ref in tree-vrp.c, outside the C++ front-end indeed.
First thing, we should probably figure out what is
--- Comment #11 from chris dot fairles at gmail dot com 2008-07-10 13:41
---
On x64_64, alignof(smart_ptr) == sizeof(size_t) == 8. So then the size of the
array is stored in the 8 bytes prior to the address of the returned pointer
from new[].
In the delete[] call, its offsetting the r
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-10 09:57
---
Thanks Mark, frankly I didn't know about "cookies". By the way, naively, the
fact that the warning is emitted only for -O2 doesn't indicate to me a pure
front-end issue...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #9 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-07-10 03:42 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 regression] warning "array subscript is
below array bounds" on delete [] with -O2, -Wall
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> Mark, could you possibly comment on this PR? W
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-09 22:49
---
Mark, could you possibly comment on this PR? With some good hints I could even
try to work on it...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36633
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last re
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-25 21:00 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> This bug is similar to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35593 which
> is fixed in mainline.
It is like that but this one is really the C++ front-end emitting weird trees
to begi
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-25 20:59 ---
D.2148_2 = (struct D[7] *) D.2168_1;
D.2149_3 = D.2148_2 + 8;
D.2169_4 = (long unsigned int *) D.2149_3;
D.2170_5 = D.2169_4 + -8;
That seems wrong. Why are we going from a struct D[7] * to a long unsigned
--- Comment #5 from chris dot fairles at gmail dot com 2008-06-25 20:59
---
This bug is similar to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35593 which
is fixed in mainline.
--
chris dot fairles at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from chris dot fairles at gmail dot com 2008-06-25 20:56
---
Adding CC as requested.
--
chris dot fairles at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from chris dot fairles at gmail dot com 2008-06-25 20:55
---
Created an attachment (id=15816)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15816&action=view)
File from tree dump with the negative subscript index
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3
--- Comment #2 from chris dot fairles at gmail dot com 2008-06-25 20:54
---
Created an attachment (id=15815)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15815&action=view)
File from tree dump before subscript operator appears.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
--- Comment #1 from chris dot fairles at gmail dot com 2008-06-25 20:53
---
Created an attachment (id=15814)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15814&action=view)
Test case that issues warning with compiling with -O2,-Wall
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
8_15);
--
Summary: warning "array subscript is below array bounds" on
delete [] with -O2, -Wall
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo:
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-18 17:28 ---
And the branch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-18 17:24 ---
Subject: Bug 35593
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 18 17:23:35 2008
New Revision: 133318
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133318
Log:
2008-03-18 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ba
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35593
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 16:09 ---
Fixed on the trunk.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Sever
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 14:28 ---
Subject: Bug 35593
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Mar 15 14:27:55 2008
New Revision: 133249
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133249
Log:
2008-03-15 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-14 22:44 ---
I'll have a look.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedT
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-14 22:44 ---
Because we fold the pointer addition to &a->d[-8] ;)
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-O2
is:
/tmp/test.cxx: In function ‘void test(B*)’:
/tmp/test.cxx:22: warning: array subscript is below array bounds
/tmp/test.cxx: In function ‘void test(A*)’:
/tmp/test.cxx:10: warning: array subscript is below array bounds
I have not found a sane way in my non-example, real-world code to avoid t
61 matches
Mail list logo
