http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
--- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #15) > I don't think you simply want a better fix for 54583, because for the > testcase in #Comment 13 the new conditional setting TREE_NO_WARNING isn't > used. Otherwise, I think it would be easy to tighten it via > array_of_runtime_bound_p. The issue isn't with setting the bit but reading it. If you look at the patch, I remove a test for TREE_NO_WARNING (expr). This breaks 54583 because the TREE_NO_WARNING bit is then ignored.
