> On 2026-07-14 15:49:01 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2026-07-14 10:51:47 +0000, Alexy via Tinycc-devel wrote:
> > >
> > > No erros no warnings. Just compile and work
> > >
> > > #include <stdio.h>
> > >
> > > int main()
> > > {
> > > char* t[5] = {"999"};
> > >
> > > t[0] = "123456";
> > > t[4] = "X";
> > > t[15] = "abcdef";
> > > t[25] = "MNO";
> > > t[35] = "C";
> > >
> > > printf( "%s\n%s\n%s\n%s\n", *t, t[4], t[15], t[25] );
> > > }
> >
> > This is undefined behavior. The compiler is not required to warn
> > (and cannot always warn). With GCC, the issue is detected by using
> > "-fsanitize=undefined".
>
> Note that GCC also has -Warray-bounds, but it is unreliable:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
>
> So I wouldn't expect tcc to be better, in addition to the fact
> that tcc is designed to be a light and fast compiler.
>
One TCC specific addition: compiling this example with "tcc -b"
detects the first invalid access at runtime.
TCC currently has no equivalent static array bounds warning. This
particular constant index case could be considered for a narrowly
scoped diagnostic enhancement.
Mounir IDRASSI
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
