https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66974
--- Comment #5 from Ganesh Ajjanagadde ---
That I do not consider a readable or scalable solution.
Furthermore, this is a bug, and the FFmpeg codebase gets compiled across a wide
array of compilers. We can't insert hacks for specific GCC versions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66974
--- Comment #2 from Ganesh Ajjanagadde ---
Of course. However, the caller might ensure that order is always in the valid
range (e.g <= 3 in this case), and the callee should not have to verify this
if that is the case. The reason we do not actual
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gajjanagadde at gmail dot com
CC: gajjanagadde at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 36039
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36039&acti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66422
--- Comment #4 from Ganesh Ajjanagadde ---
Updated attachment that compiles to standalone executable (invoked with similar
flags for with/without warning as before: gcc -Warray-bounds -O3 test.c,
gcc -Warray-bounds test.c respectively).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66422
Ganesh Ajjanagadde changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #35698|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66422
--- Comment #2 from Ganesh Ajjanagadde ---
But myfoo->foo_size is not set within the foo_loop function.
For instance, myfoo->foo_size could be set outside the function boundary,
and then the function could be called (say foo_size = 3 or 4).
This
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gajjanagadde at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 35698
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35698&action=edit
test
Compiling the following code on GCC 5.1.0 produces a bogus out of bounds
