https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80346
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The reduced test case from comment #4 doesn't trigger a warning because in it
the value of n is unknown. The original test case does trigger it because in
it n's range is known. This is evident from the VRP dump which shows:
Value ranges after VRP:
__n_5: ~[1, 18446744071562067967]
...
test_acpi_piix4_tcg ()
{
...
g_assertion_message_cmpnum (0B, "bug2.c", 59, &__func__, "tables_nr > 0",
_71, ">", 0.0, 105);
__n_5 = (gsize) tables_nr_69;
__p_58 = g_malloc0_n (__n_5, 4);
The anti-range implies that the variable's value is either zero or greater than
18446744071562067967 (0xffffffff7fffffff) so the allocation request is either
for zero bytes or some positive multiple of the excessive size. Since zero is
not considered a valid size (unless it's constant) and 18446744071562067967 is
too big the warning triggers.
The inlining context of the call is shown in the full output of the warning.
It might help shed light on where the range comes from.
In function ‘test_acpi_rsdt_table’,
inlined from ‘test_acpi_one.constprop’ at pr80346-2.c:19334:5,
inlined from ‘test_acpi_piix4_tcg’ at pr80346-2.c:19346:5:
pr80346-2.c:19319:59: warning: argument 1 range [18446744071562067968,
18446744073709551615] exceeds maximum object size 9223372036854775807
[-Walloc-size-larger-than=]
/ __s)) __p = g_malloc0 (__n * __s); else __p = g_malloc0_n (__n,
__s); __p; }));
~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
