https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39772
--- Comment #14 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> --- > > If yes, the summary should probably changed to be less misleading (I had to > > read the thread twice to understand). > > done You missed my main point. As shown by the number of comments in this PR, I think the use of "bounds" in this context is misleading: i.e., there is no access to an array outside its bounds. This is why I proposed to use -fcheck=xxxx, with suitable name for xxxx: intrinsic_range, range, overflow, undefined, ... . Indeed I cannot tell what is the right choice: intrinsic_range is probably the best description, but is quite long for my taste, with the other choices the user may expect too much for the check, ... . Is the following list of intrinsics exhaustive? C_SIZEOF, COUNT, LBOUND, LEN, LEN_TRIM, SHAPE, SIZE, SIZEOF, STORAGE_SIZE, and UBOUND Note that C_SIZEOF and SIZEOF are not supposed to accept KIND=8 as an optional argument. Also AFAIU pr31243, the string length is limited to HUGE(0).
