> Warning for pointer generation is going to be a *lot* harder and I
> suspect will always result in more false positives.
In order to increase the accuracy of the data dependence analysis, i do,
at some point, plan on tracking the sizes of malloc sites, and giving an
upper bound on them (for cas
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 20:32 +0200, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to implement a tree pass that warns about bad array
> accesses as suggested for PR 8268 by Jeff Law. However, I have trouble
> with the following:
>
> char digit_vector[5];
> const char *ggc_alloc_string(int length) {
>
Hi,
I'm trying to implement a tree pass that warns about bad array
accesses as suggested for PR 8268 by Jeff Law. However, I have trouble
with the following:
char digit_vector[5];
const char *ggc_alloc_string(int length) {
return digit_vector + ((length - 17) * 2);
}
this translates to:
ggc
