From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 5CBFC38460A3; Sat, 1 May 2021 15:08:55 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5CBFC38460A3 From: "andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/99578] gcc-11 -Warray-bounds or -Wstringop-overread warning when accessing a pointer from integer literal Date: Sat, 01 May 2021 15:08:53 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: andi-gcc at firstfloor dot 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: cc 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 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 May 2021 15:08:55 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99578 Andi Kleen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |andi-gcc at firstfloor dot= org --- Comment #12 from Andi Kleen --- It looks to me separate bugs are mixed together here. For example I looked at the preallocate_pmd warning again and I don't think there is any union there. Also I noticed that when I replace the *foo[N] wi= th **foo it disappears. So I think that is something different. So there seem to be instances where such warnings happen without union memb= ers. Perhaps that one (and perhaps some others) need to be reanalyzed. I also looked at the intel_pm.c and I think that one is a real kernel bug, where the field accessed is really too small. I'll submit a patch for that.=