[Bug bootstrap/101374] [12 Regression] bootstrap failure varpool.c:490:19: error: array subscript 'varpool_node[0]' is partly outside array bounds of 'varpool_node [0]' [-Werror=array-bounds]

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101374

--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
For the test case the warning sees this:

int varpool_node::_ZN12varpool_node16get_availabilityEv.part.0 (struct
varpool_node * const this)
{
  ...
  struct symtab_node * _7;
  struct varpool_node * _12;
  ...
  <bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]:
  _7 = &this_1(D)->D.2395;            <<< varpool_node::symtab_node subobject
  _11 = is_a<varpool_node*, symtab_node*> (_7);
  if (_11 != 0)
    goto <bb 4>; [71.00%]
  else
    goto <bb 3>; [29.00%]

  <bb 3> [local count: 311385128]:

  <bb 4> [local count: 1073741824]:
  # _12 = PHI <_7(2), 0B(3)>          <<< _12 size is (at most) 4
  _15 = BIT_FIELD_REF <*_12, 8, 0>;   <<< -Warray-bounds

The MEM_REF *_12 accesses a varpool_node object with size 8 but _12 points to a
symtab_node subobject with size of just 4.  So the warning code works
correctly.  It triggers because the call to compute_objsize(..., 1, ...) (with
Object Size Type 1) respects subobject boundaries and so doesn't consider that
_12, or more precisely _7, points to a subobject of a larger object.  Before
r12-2132 -Warray-bounds did its own slightly more conservative computation
which was roughly equivalent to Object Size Type 0.

Calling compute_objsize(..., 0, ...) instead avoids the warning for the reduced
test case.  Let me see if it also fixes the rest of the problems.