On 01/14/15 00:48, Martin Uecker wrote:
If you plan to contribute regularly, you should go ahead and apply for
write access to the repository so that you'll be able to commit your own
patches once they're approved.
I put a request in with you as sponsor (hope this is ok).
Of course.
You'
Jeff Law :
> On 01/13/15 17:40, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Jeff Law :
> >> On 01/13/15 10:34, Martin Uecker wrote:
> >>> Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:00:44 -0700
> >>> Jeff Law :
> On 11/11/14 23:13, Martin Uecker wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> Has this patch been bootstrapped and regression tested, if s
On 01/13/15 17:40, Martin Uecker wrote:
Jeff Law :
On 01/13/15 10:34, Martin Uecker wrote:
Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:00:44 -0700
Jeff Law :
On 11/11/14 23:13, Martin Uecker wrote:
...
Has this patch been bootstrapped and regression tested, if so on what
platform.
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Appr
Jeff Law :
> On 01/13/15 10:34, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:00:44 -0700
> > Jeff Law :
> >> On 11/11/14 23:13, Martin Uecker wrote:
...
> >> Has this patch been bootstrapped and regression tested, if so on what
> >> platform.
> >
> > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
> Approved. Please i
On 01/13/15 10:34, Martin Uecker wrote:
Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:00:44 -0700
Jeff Law :
On 11/11/14 23:13, Martin Uecker wrote:
...
* gcc/tree-vrp.c (check_array_ref): Emit more warnings
for warn_array_bounds >= 2.
* gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-11.c: New test-case.
* gcc/c-fami
Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:00:44 -0700
Jeff Law :
> On 11/11/14 23:13, Martin Uecker wrote:
...
> >
> >
> > * gcc/tree-vrp.c (check_array_ref): Emit more warnings
> > for warn_array_bounds >= 2.
> > * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-11.c: New test-case.
> > * gcc/c-family/c.opt: New option -
On 11/11/14 23:13, Martin Uecker wrote:
Hi,
this proposed patch adds an option "-Warray-bounds=" in addition to
"-Warray-bound". "-Warray-bounds=1" corresponds to "-Warray-bound".
For higher warning levels more warnings about optional accesses
outside of arrays are emitted. For example, warning
Please consider this patch. The additional warnings would be useful
IMHO, are also emitted by clang, and the change seems trivial.
Previous discussion about potential false positives:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-11/msg00114.html
Tue, 11 Nov 2014 22:13:20 -0800
Martin Uecker :
>
> Hi,
>
