From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31799 invoked by alias); 25 Aug 2005 16:36:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 30644 invoked by uid 48); 25 Aug 2005 16:35:02 -0000 Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:42:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050825163502.30643.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "rth at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050825153435.23561.jakub@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20050825153435.23561.jakub@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/23561] nonoverlapping_memrefs_p returns true even for overlapping memory references X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg02929.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-25 16:35 ------- All that said, I personally would consider this a source code bug. If you really meant to initialize two members of the structure, I think it makes logical sense that you refer to the object as a whole. Otherwise we deny the ability to apply sensible range checks to array members within objects. And in the case in question, it's quite obviously an off-by-one bug on the part of the programmer. They did not really intend to initialize a3[0] twice. So I think it would be useful if _FORTIFY_SOURCE complained about this usage even if it turns out to be within the letter of the law. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23561