------- Comment #14 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-30 19:37 ------- (In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #12) > > > this (t02.original) looks like a possible off-by-one error. > > > > [1] here is correct, the arrary bounds is 1:1 and not the C array bounds > > starting at 0. > > I should mention the off by the one error is in expand, where it forgets to > take into account the lower bound of the array.
(In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #12) > > > this (t02.original) looks like a possible off-by-one error. > > > > [1] here is correct, the arrary bounds is 1:1 and not the C array bounds > > starting at 0. > > I should mention the off by the one error is in expand, where it forgets to > take into account the lower bound of the array. Sounds like the tree-optimizers should have replaced "0"[1] with '0'. This also sounds like it was pure chance that the bug didn't trigger at -O0. > I will be fixing this after my current bootstrap/test finishes for a different > expand bug. Thanks. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26001
