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 1BAAB3858439; Fri,  6 Oct 2023 16:52:06 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1BAAB3858439
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1696611126;
	bh=xgHLuieIVAJ0WcibnFzb+QOKP2QyQm2S1S2oZuaFxOE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ahcDF4ujc6LRbH22YOvI67lm2oo4ihKty/v3nZhmYfGbuhD5fI5DOpxrstrF9xIV/
	 8U1qEAbgMW5u+3+5b8BHYVMW6fKQYdQhda8pLuPTWvZPp5vBdbhqmLMP5JGyC/nfNn
	 t99WEemXTZbFs/MjxmyhDXF1NzjYPapphzVVHC9A=
From: "king.chung at manchester dot ac.uk" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug debug/111716] call site parameter not matching with formal
 parameter
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2023 16:52:05 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: debug
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-debug
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: king.chung at manchester dot ac.uk
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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: 
Message-ID: <bug-111716-4-nOfIaEiOMR@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111716-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111716-4@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=3D111716

--- Comment #3 from King Lok Chung <king.chung at manchester dot ac.uk> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> (In reply to King Lok Chung from comment #0)=20
> > I also find that the type of the parameter is not propagated correctly.=
 For
> > example, an array type is propagated as a pointer type. Should I open
> > another bug report for this?
>=20
> array types decay to pointers for parameters ...

I know they are the same most of the time; however, knowing the variable is=
 an
array will be more beneficial than just knowing it as a standard pointer, a=
s an
array implies the data will be within a bounded area, while a pointer type =
will
not be able to make such an implication.=