From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 34DE2384B112; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:35:46 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 34DE2384B112 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1713893746; bh=q0MExBv4j8KguYv7hFssF/DjoFRzhSZH5E/j0iFMglM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=WBmdkZ3exk73GIEjjNcp9k3GOLoQt32sSbwFgVN3VM/f2+K6pkFUxlJ0oeCu/Xmtu XCxpIL2mlcY8/crYSNe473OeG0uZXx0liz4qP48deTWZ+IOWb7ev4Q4tDT0R8A5Jgc ukticwYeE8axdDxlfSSxUFZppqOuxweHJBSEzVy4= From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/114826] [13 Regression] Bogus -Warray-bounds warning for 32-byte array with certain march flags Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 17:35:45 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.2.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 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: 13.3 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: short_desc see_also target_milestone 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=3D114826 Andrew Pinski changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Bogus -Warray-bounds |[13 Regression] Bogus |warning for 32-byte array |-Warray-bounds warning for |with certain march flags |32-byte array with certain | |march flags See Also| |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill | |a/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113988 Target Milestone|--- |13.3 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > Rather store merging I guess. Or rather how memcpy was done.=