http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56932
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56932
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-12 11:50:23
UTC ---
The testcase in gcc.c-torture/execute/pr55875.c does seem off by 1. For i==250,
i+5 is 255 and we don't exit yet (that happens for 251) but we do write to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56932
--- Comment #3 from graham.stott at btinternet dot com 2013-04-12 12:21:59 UTC
---
ktietz.
Access to a[250] is undefined as pointed out by andrew.
Increase size of a to 251 to get the test passing.
Graham
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56932
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-12 18:31:05
UTC ---
Well, indeed increasing the array-size helps to avoid this issue. Nevertheless
I don't get why it produces wrong code for argument of call of function t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56932
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-12
19:00:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Well, indeed increasing the array-size helps to avoid this issue.
Nevertheless
I don't get why it produces wrong code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56932
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-12 20:02:01
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Well, indeed increasing the array-size helps to avoid this issue.
Nevertheless
I don't get why it produces wrong code for
