The GCC 11 -Warray-bounds enhancement to diagnose accesses whose
leading offset is in bounds but whose trailing offset is not has
been causing some confusion. When the warning is issued for
an access to an in-bounds member via a pointer to a struct that's
larger than the pointed-to object, phrasi
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 6:04 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> The GCC 11 -Warray-bounds enhancement to diagnose accesses whose
> leading offset is in bounds but whose trailing offset is not has
> been causing some confusion. When the warning is issued for
> an access to an in-bounds mem
On 1/30/21 12:36 AM, Eric Gallager wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 6:04 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
The GCC 11 -Warray-bounds enhancement to diagnose accesses whose
leading offset is in bounds but whose trailing offset is not has
been causing some confusion. When the warning is issu
On 1/28/21 4:03 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> The GCC 11 -Warray-bounds enhancement to diagnose accesses whose
> leading offset is in bounds but whose trailing offset is not has
> been causing some confusion. When the warning is issued for
> an access to an in-bounds member via a pointer to a struc
On 2/3/21 2:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 1/28/21 4:03 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The GCC 11 -Warray-bounds enhancement to diagnose accesses whose
leading offset is in bounds but whose trailing offset is not has
been causing some confusion. When the warning is issued for
an access to an in-bounds me
On 2/3/21 3:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 2/3/21 2:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/28/21 4:03 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> The GCC 11 -Warray-bounds enhancement to diagnose accesses whose
>>> leading offset is in bounds but whose trailing offset is not has
>>> been causing some confusion.
On 2/8/21 12:09 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/3/21 3:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/3/21 2:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 1/28/21 4:03 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The GCC 11 -Warray-bounds enhancement to diagnose accesses whose
leading offset is in bounds but whose trailing offset is not has
been causi
On 2/8/21 4:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 2/8/21 12:09 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/3/21 3:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> On 2/3/21 2:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 1/28/21 4:03 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> The GCC 11 -Warray-bounds enhancement to diagnose accesses whose
>
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 1:04 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On 2/8/21 12:09 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2/3/21 3:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >> On 2/3/21 2:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 1/28/21 4:03 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> The GCC 11 -Warray-bounds enhanceme
On 2/9/21 12:41 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 1:04 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On 2/8/21 12:09 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/3/21 3:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/3/21 2:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 1/28/21 4:03 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The GCC 11 -Warray-bounds e
On 2/8/21 4:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/8/21 4:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/8/21 12:09 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/3/21 3:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/3/21 2:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 1/28/21 4:03 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The GCC 11 -Warray-bounds enhancement to diagnose accesses who
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 4:37 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 2/9/21 12:41 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 1:04 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/8/21 12:09 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2/3/21 3:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 2/3/21 2:57
On 2/10/21 3:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 4:37 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/9/21 12:41 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 1:04 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On 2/8/21 12:09 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 2/3/21 3:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/3/21
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 7:03 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 2/10/21 3:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 4:37 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/9/21 12:41 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 1:04 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>
On 2/11/21 1:09 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 7:03 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/10/21 3:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 4:37 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
On 2/9/21 12:41 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 1:04 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:26 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 2/11/21 1:09 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 7:03 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/10/21 3:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 4:37 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 2/9/21 12:41 AM
Ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/564483.html
The review of this patch digressed into a design discussion of a new,
more capable implementation of -Wstrict-aliasing, but the proposed
patch turning just this one instance of -Warray-bounds into
-Wstrict-aliasing and makin
On 3/18/2021 4:18 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
Ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/564483.html
The review of this patch digressed into a design discussion of a new,
more capable implementation of -Wstrict-aliasing, but the proposed
patch turning just this on
On 3/20/21 10:48 AM, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
On 3/18/2021 4:18 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
Ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/564483.html
The review of this patch digressed into a design discussion of a new,
more capable implementation of -Wstrict-
19 matches
Mail list logo