https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #18 from Xavier ---
The lib has been recently opensourced so I can share it :
https://github.com/Intersec/lib-common/blob/master/src/core/str-stream.h
We have 100-200 usages of p_end/s_end/b_end so even if it's possible to patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #17 from Martin Sebor ---
As you observed, the warning disappears if the assert is removed, so that's one
workaround. But rather than working around it I would suggest to rewrite the
code to avoid the pointer subtraction. Chances
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #16 from Xavier ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #14)
> That said and codegen improvements aside, I think the submitted test case is
> sufficiently tricky that I don't see issuing a warning for it as a problem.
> All
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
>
> --- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
> SO it's not terrible to get the key block
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor ---
I can think of only one way the warning code could avoid triggering here: by
assuming that the difference between two pointers into the same array is less
than or equal the size of the array (with non-array
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||drahflow at gmx dot de
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
SO it's not terrible to get the key block cleaned up. but that's not
sufficient to resolve this issue. We all missed an important tidbit.
VRP is complaining about this:
ps.D.2041.s = [(void *) +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> > The false positive is not due a shortcoming of the warning but rather due to
> > GCC not having a sufficiently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
> Yea, unrolling and the array-bounds warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Yea, unrolling and the array-bounds warning do have bad interactions.
I suspect if we cleaned up this block that the backwards threader would likely
kick in:
# iftmp.2_18 = PHI <1(3), 1(4), 0(5)>
_19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
>
> Jeffrey A. Law changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[9/10 regression] |[9/10 regression]
14 matches
Mail list logo