https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81524
--- Comment #7 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
I tested GCC-12 and it now correctly warns for these test cases.
Great work, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100491
--- Comment #9 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
I tested with gcc-12-20220123 snapshot, and lastest gcc now produces the same
result as gcc-10.2.0, so I agree I think this issue is resolved now.
Thanks! BR Fredrik
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102346
Bug ID: 102346
Summary: Missing warning for array bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100491
--- Comment #5 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Created attachment 50783
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50783&action=edit
092t.fixup_cfg3 not working
092t.fixup_cfg3 example SRA not used.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100491
--- Comment #4 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Created attachment 50782
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50782&action=edit
092t.fixup_cfg3 working
Example where SRA is used, good example.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100491
--- Comment #3 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
It is strange that SRA is skipped only when adding the (unnecessary) function
prototype:
static int addsym (register char[], char *, int, hash_table_t, int);
If skipping the prototype, or adding 'w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100491
--- Comment #1 from Fredrik Hederstierna
---
Created attachment 50780
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50780&action=edit
makefile
Adding makefile to compile test example. See in makefile how to
trigger/untrigger the unexpec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100491
Bug ID: 100491
Summary: Code generation get worse when including function
prototype on ARM
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
