On October 7, 2016 8:03:34 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Sebor wrote:
>On 10/07/2016 11:15 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On October 7, 2016 6:49:39 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Sebor
> wrote:
>>> While processing the (p += i) expression below to validate the
>bounds
>>> of the pointer in I call get_range_info for i
On 10/07/2016 11:15 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On October 7, 2016 6:49:39 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Sebor wrote:
While processing the (p += i) expression below to validate the bounds
of the pointer in I call get_range_info for i (in tree-object-size.c).
The function returns the following VR_RANGE: [2
On October 7, 2016 6:49:39 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Sebor wrote:
>While processing the (p += i) expression below to validate the bounds
>of the pointer in I call get_range_info for i (in tree-object-size.c).
>The function returns the following VR_RANGE: [2147483648, -2147483649]
>rather than the expec
While processing the (p += i) expression below to validate the bounds
of the pointer in I call get_range_info for i (in tree-object-size.c).
The function returns the following VR_RANGE: [2147483648, -2147483649]
rather than the expected [0, 1]. Is such a range to be expected or
is it a bug?
In g
