http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51311
--- Comment #3 from Michael Bruck <bruck.michael at googlemail dot com> 2011-11-28 02:44:16 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > I don't think this is a bug as in_data can be changed by a different > > function > > other than bar(). > > Before I stripped this down to a test case in_data was actually a const coming > from a second function (into which bar was being inlined by gcc). > > Apart from that even if modified elsewhere gcc should IMO not assume that that > modification produces an ill-formed in_data that triggers case 0x02. > To illustrate a bit further why it is a problem, what I originally did was have bar() parse in_data. But not as global constant but passed as parameter. bar() in this case parses all sorts of different versions of in_data, some actually containing 0x02 and a valid length. To test this I added a second function to call bar() with a test case. That test case does not include 0x02. This triggers the error even though it is well-formed. I have to make the test case larger than 16+1 bytes to kill the error. But my test case and that function are otherwise correct code. Also curiously, if I add const before the "size_t in_length = ..." the error goes away.
