https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109950
--- Comment #4 from LIU Hao ---
Given the fact that GCC is already able to warn about out-of-range indexes for
an array, why wouldn't it be possible to infer that `*(data + next)` is always
an element of `data`?
If the result of `data + next`
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109950
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109950
--- Comment #2 from LIU Hao ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #1)
> That's the REX prefix, not an operand size override prefix. It doesn't cause
> a decoding stall.
Thanks for pointing this out. Thought it was 66H.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109950
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
