On 02/08/2018 03:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Since my patch isn't the easy one liner I wanted it to be, perhaps we >> should concentrate on Martin's patch, which is more robust, and has >> testcases to boot! His patch from last week also fixes a couple other >> PRs. >> >> Richard, would this be acceptable? That is, could you or Jakub review >> Martin's all-encompassing patch? If so, I'll drop mine. > > Sorry, no - this one looks way too complicated. > >> Also, could someone pontificate on whether we want to fix >> -Warray-bounds regressions for this release cycle? > > Remove bogus ones? Yes. Add "missing ones"? No. Seems reasonable. I'll retarget the missed warning stuff for gcc-9 and we'll consider those out-of-scope for gcc-8.
Still in scope would be bogus warnings. Jeff