[Bug fortran/95512] gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c:1066: array sanity check after use

2020-06-14 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95512 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID CC|

[Bug fortran/95512] gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c:1066: array sanity check after use

2020-06-06 Thread dcb314 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95512 --- Comment #4 from David Binderman --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #3) > I didn't write the code, but for more context: Thanks for the extra context. > Maybe it is bad style, but I still consider it a false positive. If you go back and

[Bug fortran/95512] gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c:1066: array sanity check after use

2020-06-06 Thread anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95512 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- I didn't write the code, but for more context: trans.h has: #define GFC_TYPE_ARRAY_LBOUND(node, dim) \ (TYPE_LANG_SPECIFIC(node)->lbound[dim]) #define GFC_TYPE_ARRAY_UBOUND(node, dim) \

[Bug fortran/95512] gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c:1066: array sanity check after use

2020-06-06 Thread dcb314 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95512 --- Comment #2 from David Binderman --- I fail to understand how this can be a false positive. if (array[ X] && X < something - 1) looks like a pretty convincing case of use before sanity checking to me. It is a standard pattern to sanity

[Bug fortran/95512] gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c:1066: array sanity check after use

2020-06-05 Thread anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95512 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-06-05 Ever