This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: [gfortran,patch] Fix undue out-of-bounds warning (PR30655)
- From: FX Coudert <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
- To: Brooks Moses <brooks dot moses at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org List" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 21:21:41 +0100
- Subject: Re: [gfortran,patch] Fix undue out-of-bounds warning (PR30655)
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:message-id:cc:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; b=EIWcdRpEinkQEEw1BG4tHsv8TSBSF60luACPPlL1+6w2sFT/d27Daq0riykOTBjSFUS5WLIh9NRASCidx5RwL4CB0BrQVe2v+JiHyW8/3Ixz2nJBXD/+rYJ/VN5V8tsmRSkgDFweCI5LQZPw7HFWtrwEMfUnvl4eAA7Eh+gR/hw=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:message-id:cc:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; b=Bk4hhno2xBax8yWfm3CYk9uc2rJ1HrX9DKYgFAtvaQCzGjUgTraWnahWVvLArKeiBV1nCApQKhYwIxC+DOjj+z5JtCdRqT5cVCwcEYAVbP8DC2H6bhorhnsk8sfme1NAW+/jyGIVHpkYPddFCC7x1VNzplJcHizU2bN4wqJ5faY=
- References: <141FE58B-8CC9-4B0C-A5E6-2AF738345B0E@gmail.com> <46045847.3080207@codesourcery.com>
Bootstrapped and regtested some time ago on i686-linux, currently
rebootstrapping and reregtesting on x86_64-linux. OK for mainline
and 4.2?
OK for mainline, with the above changes (assuming that you agree
with my logic!).
Your review was right on all counts (and yes, comparing the stride to
0 can yield CMP_UNKNOWN, that was the tricky thing that got me
writing this code in the first place). I modified the patch according
to your suggestions. Commited to mainline as rev. 123187:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123187
Also ok for 4.2 if this is fixing a regression. If it isn't, I
think I'd like to ask for a second opinion on that (or feel free to
email Mark and lobby for including it).
I'm not pushing for 4.2 at all, as it's not a regression fix and it's
simply a warning. In fact, I think it better to leave 4.2 alone when
we can afford to. :)
FX