On Mon, 2 May 2011, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Mon, 2 May 2011, Richard Guenther wrote: > > > We do have similar testcases in gcc.dg/large-size-array*.c, but not > > exactly testing the bound. The above testcase also complains with > > -pedantic about > > > > t.c:3:13: error: size of array 'a' is too large > > t.c:4:1: error: overflow in constant expression [-Woverflow] > > t.c:5:12: error: size of array 'c' is too large > > t.c:6:1: error: overflow in constant expression [-Woverflow] > > > > with and without the patch. I can add -Wno-overflow to the flags. > > Ok with that? > > Those overflow errors are bugs (the tests have no overflowing constant > expression, it must be something the compiler is generating internally), > and it seems they only appear for 64-bit compilation for me, not for > 32-bit, for some reason. But as they are independent of the patch, OK > with -Wno-overflow and with a PR filed for the bogus overflow errors. > > (I get the overflow errors for a char array for a size of > ((size_t)-1 >> 4)+1 but not for ((size_t)-1 >> 4), i.e. 1ULL<<60 bytes is > the point where the bogus errors start.)
Committed as rev. 173297. I filed PR48850 for the rejects-valid. Richard.
