Re: PING 2 [PATCH] correct handling of variable offset minus constant in -Warray-bounds (PR 100137)

2021-07-08 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
On 7/8/21 4:41 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: On Jul 07 2021, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote: On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 02:38:11PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: I certainly will. Pushed in r12-2132. I think this patch breaks bootstrap on x86_64: It also breaks bootstrap on

Re: PING 2 [PATCH] correct handling of variable offset minus constant in -Warray-bounds (PR 100137)

2021-07-08 Thread Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches
On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 at 12:42, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > On Jul 07 2021, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 02:38:11PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches > > wrote: > >> I certainly will. Pushed in r12-2132. > > > > I think this patch breaks bootstrap on x86_64: >

Re: PING 2 [PATCH] correct handling of variable offset minus constant in -Warray-bounds (PR 100137)

2021-07-08 Thread Andreas Schwab
On Jul 07 2021, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote: > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 02:38:11PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: >> I certainly will. Pushed in r12-2132. > > I think this patch breaks bootstrap on x86_64: It also breaks bootstrap on aarch64 and ia64 in stage2. In file

Re: PING 2 [PATCH] correct handling of variable offset minus constant in -Warray-bounds (PR 100137)

2021-07-08 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 5:12 AM Martin Sebor wrote: > > On 7/7/21 7:48 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 02:38:11PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches > > wrote: > >> On 7/7/21 1:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > >>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 5:47 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches >

Re: PING 2 [PATCH] correct handling of variable offset minus constant in -Warray-bounds (PR 100137)

2021-07-07 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
On 7/7/21 7:48 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 02:38:11PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: On 7/7/21 1:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 5:47 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: Ping:

Re: PING 2 [PATCH] correct handling of variable offset minus constant in -Warray-bounds (PR 100137)

2021-07-07 Thread Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 02:38:11PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: > On 7/7/21 1:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 5:47 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches > > wrote: > > > > > > Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/573349.html > > > > + if

Re: PING 2 [PATCH] correct handling of variable offset minus constant in -Warray-bounds (PR 100137)

2021-07-07 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
On 7/7/21 1:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 5:47 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/573349.html + if (TREE_CODE (axstype) != UNION_TYPE) what about QUAL_UNION_TYPE? (why constrain union type accesses here -

Re: PING 2 [PATCH] correct handling of variable offset minus constant in -Warray-bounds (PR 100137)

2021-07-07 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 5:47 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/573349.html + if (TREE_CODE (axstype) != UNION_TYPE) what about QUAL_UNION_TYPE? (why constrain union type accesses here - note you don't seem to constrain accesses

PING 2 [PATCH] correct handling of variable offset minus constant in -Warray-bounds (PR 100137)

2021-07-06 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/573349.html On 6/28/21 1:33 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/573349.html On 6/21/21 4:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: -Warray-bounds relies on similar logic as -Wstringop-overflow et al., but