From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 6F9CF385223F; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 17:53:15 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6F9CF385223F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1669225995; bh=EoMeZPpQSWnL+9JkMK7Umf8KyA47Hs4N3BrZz5o7utk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ptGkdkZniI9SJBHvcxIISppKR8WNkFnD1U8mgduc6CEmNGeTYl95cJv+a1dv7qtgj eD4ND/y3l7YYXM/4jcd0EfiVrySkkGTkWW4ujXvH2zDUWn+LahxSIEuL3hwb85SOJL zTWfzjzwA7TR873l3F18bbP2wEF6ZlaHx3c7bmLk= From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/105523] Wrong warning array subscript [0] is outside array bounds Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 17:53:13 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia 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: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: everconfirmed cf_reconfirmed_on bug_status Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105523 Andrew Pinski changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed| |2022-11-23 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to LIU Hao from comment #6) > Apparently GCC thinks we are dereferencing `0x30` which is a dangling > pointer however that is exactly what we want to do, so GCC shouldn't have > warned in this case. That inline-asm is not correct and GCC does not understand segments if you don't use named address space feature. The original issue is confirmed.=