From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 2761E3856DE3; Tue,  3 May 2022 12:42:54 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2761E3856DE3
From: "marxin at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/105438] [11/12/13 Regression] Incorrect array-bounds
 warning with array size carried over from a previous template instantiation
 since r11-4987-g602c6cfc79ce4ae6 since r11-4987-g602c6cfc79ce4ae6
Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 12:42:54 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: ipa
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.3.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-105438-4-TLJ3Pqb7av@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-105438-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-105438-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 12:42:54 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105438

--- Comment #8 from Martin Li=C5=A1ka <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So the 2 following functions are merged:

void _Z9configureILi7EEvRAT__Kii.part.0<7> (const int[7] & in, const int nr=
ows)
{
...

void _Z9configureILi2EEvRAT__Kii.part.0<2> (const int[2] & in, const int nr=
ows)
{
...

which have a different argument in. However I don't think one can't end wit=
h a
wrong code as nrows argument would be different in:

  _Z9configureILi7EEvRAT__Kii.part.0<7> (&longer, 7);
  _Z9configureILi2EEvRAT__Kii.part.0<2> (&shorter, 2);

I was unable to come up with a code that would be miscompiled.=