https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109266
--- Comment #5 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #2)
> > Thank you for your reply David. Your analyzer is very good already.
> >
> > I played around a bit, a base of nullptr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109266
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #3)
> (In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #2)
[...]
> >
> > I wondered if you know how to turn on that "cc1plus: note: source object is
> > likely at address zero?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109266
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #2)
> Thank you for your reply David. Your analyzer is very good already.
>
> I played around a bit, a base of nullptr doesn't give a warning. But
> changing to 0x10 do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109266
--- Comment #2 from Jonny Grant ---
Thank you for your reply David. Your analyzer is very good already.
I played around a bit, a base of nullptr doesn't give a warning. But changing
to 0x10 does give array-bounds warning.
cc1plus: note: source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109266
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for filing this bug.
We probably want to allow accesses to hard-coded addresses, for the case of
embedded development, so we presumably need some way to distinguish between
accesses of:
((struct fo
