This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PR tree-optimization/84047] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Martin Sebor <msebor at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:57:59 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PR tree-optimization/84047] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <9a52975c-c720-f42f-3564-7b69e361487d@redhat.com> <CAFiYyc1mjj6bgTEgC0_Y1JeCa9K_ww2-=X2k4V47z+x=0djfqA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGm3qMWA8x4tbdbQy6mfewBHX7ECaKUaQ-=_6X=t5WhsAOY=FA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc2oy+dw9TZ67dayFT+mDcef=cqjyvOfHBZ_Ss+aOOiJoA@mail.gmail.com>
On 02/08/2018 03:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Since my patch isn't the easy one liner I wanted it to be, perhaps we
>> should concentrate on Martin's patch, which is more robust, and has
>> testcases to boot! His patch from last week also fixes a couple other
>> PRs.
>>
>> Richard, would this be acceptable? That is, could you or Jakub review
>> Martin's all-encompassing patch? If so, I'll drop mine.
>
> Sorry, no - this one looks way too complicated.
>
>> Also, could someone pontificate on whether we want to fix
>> -Warray-bounds regressions for this release cycle?
>
> Remove bogus ones? Yes. Add "missing ones"? No.
Seems reasonable. I'll retarget the missed warning stuff for gcc-9 and
we'll consider those out-of-scope for gcc-8.
Still in scope would be bogus warnings.
Jeff