On 12/9/22 21:19, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
Hi Martin,
On 12/9/22 21:04, mse...@gmail.com wrote:
Most of these warnings are designed to find simple mistakes in common use
cases so "tricky," unusual, or otherwise unexpected code is likely to lead to
surprises. This warning expects that in c
Hi Martin,
On 12/9/22 21:04, mse...@gmail.com wrote:
Most of these warnings are designed to find simple mistakes in common use cases so
"tricky," unusual, or otherwise unexpected code is likely to lead to surprises.
This warning expects that in calls to a function, every parameter declared u
> On Dec 6, 2022, at 9:22 AM, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> In the following function, past_end is a pointer to one-past-the-end of the
> array. Holding such a pointer is legal in C. I use it as a sentinel value
> that helps (1) avoid overrunning the buffer, and (2) detect tr
Hi Richard,
On 12/7/22 09:17, Richard Biener wrote:
[...]
The warnings are invalid. While it's true that I'm referencing a pointer of
size 0, it's false that I'm "accessing 1 byte" in that region. I guess this is
all about the bogus design of 'static' in ISO C, where you can have an array
par
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 5:22 PM Alejandro Colomar via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> In the following function, past_end is a pointer to one-past-the-end of the
> array. Holding such a pointer is legal in C. I use it as a sentinel value
> that
> helps (1) avoid overrunning the buffer, and (2) detect tru
Hi!
In the following function, past_end is a pointer to one-past-the-end of the
array. Holding such a pointer is legal in C. I use it as a sentinel value that
helps (1) avoid overrunning the buffer, and (2) detect truncation. I mark it as
having a size of [0], which clearly states that it c
