https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48795
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48795
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Feb 25 13:20:25 2016
New Revision: 233714
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233714&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-02-25 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/48795
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48795
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48795
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48795
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48795
--- Comment #3 from Nicolas Le Cam 2011-05-01
10:11:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> "r1->data[1] = prm2" goes above "char data[1]" bounds. How it's a false
> positive?
Because the structure is a kind of flexible array (code has to follow C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48795
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Gorbachev
2011-05-01 06:33:06 UTC ---
"r1->data[1] = prm2" goes above "char data[1]" bounds. How it's a false
positive?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48795
--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Le Cam 2011-04-27
23:42:35 UTC ---
Removing the call to p avoid the warning. Also tested by replacing p with a
call to memcpy for example, which also triggers the warning.
