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 03B273835E05; Wed,  7 Dec 2022 06:32:52 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 03B273835E05
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1670394773;
	bh=66UVD0p652+9Bb2UOclNaz8DnpML2MHT3F11YKo8gPc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=crtlA7PQqBGDKkNjA1853ocR7P9cwCSePPKXpX95LBs4lQoO1W29n9ezhS/98QhwX
	 Le6sVUR03M5/ZQnd9+VpcdVSRDyksp18KkYoohK8KVs3Hp7EdP6CpPNb+shSDhqruS
	 3kZyYS4ud6iy+707EeQGoULvqo8Rm0ueGyi7L8vo=
From: "ahmad at a3f dot at" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/105523] Wrong warning array subscript [0] is outside
 array bounds
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2022 06:32:50 +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: ahmad at a3f dot at
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: cc
Message-ID: <bug-105523-4-pr2jJzk7tK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-105523-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-105523-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105523

Ahmad Fatoum <ahmad at a3f dot at> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ahmad at a3f dot at

--- Comment #14 from Ahmad Fatoum <ahmad at a3f dot at> ---
Does param=3Dmin-pagesize=3D0 solely influence warnings or could it now or =
in the
future affect code generation/optimization?

I ask because barebox (https://barebox.org) also has this problem as on i.M=
X8,
where it calls into ROM code, which starts at address 0. After that's done,=
 it
maps the NULL page there and normal accesses are unexpected. So if it's just
about the warning, I'd prefer hiding pointer value via a compiler barrier w=
here
appliable instead of disabling the warning altogether.=