Re: [PR tree-optimization/84047] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index

2018-02-14 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 02/08/2018 03:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >>> >>> Since my patch isn't the easy one liner I wanted it to be, perhaps we >>> should concentrate

Re: [PR tree-optimization/84047] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index

2018-02-13 Thread Jeff Law
On 02/08/2018 03:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: >> Since my patch isn't the easy one liner I wanted it to be, perhaps we >> should concentrate on Martin's patch, which is more robust, and has >> testcases to boot! His patch

Re: [PR tree-optimization/84047] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index

2018-02-08 Thread Martin Sebor
On 02/08/2018 03:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: Since my patch isn't the easy one liner I wanted it to be, perhaps we should concentrate on Martin's patch, which is more robust, and has testcases to boot! His patch from

Re: [PR tree-optimization/84047] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index

2018-02-08 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > Since my patch isn't the easy one liner I wanted it to be, perhaps we > should concentrate on Martin's patch, which is more robust, and has > testcases to boot! His patch from last week also fixes a couple other > PRs. > >

Re: [PR tree-optimization/84047] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index

2018-02-01 Thread Aldy Hernandez
Since my patch isn't the easy one liner I wanted it to be, perhaps we should concentrate on Martin's patch, which is more robust, and has testcases to boot! His patch from last week also fixes a couple other PRs. Richard, would this be acceptable? That is, could you or Jakub review Martin's

Re: [PR tree-optimization/84047] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index

2018-01-31 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:11 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > Hi! > > [Note: Jakub has mentioned that missing -Warray-bounds regressions should be > punted to GCC 9. I think this particular one is easy pickings, but if this > and/or the rest of the -Warray-bounds regressions should

Re: [PR tree-optimization/84047] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index

2018-01-30 Thread Martin Sebor
On 01/30/2018 03:11 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: Hi! [Note: Jakub has mentioned that missing -Warray-bounds regressions should be punted to GCC 9. I think this particular one is easy pickings, but if this and/or the rest of the -Warray-bounds regressions should be marked as GCC 9 material, please