------- Comment #19 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-28 15:15 ------- (In reply to comment #18) > 3) for the same reason you can also drop the + 1 in computing the allocation > size which is currently (ubound - lbound + 1) * 4
Sorry, but isn't +1 needed because bounds are inclusive? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42958