gcc error array subscript is above array bounds Warrenton Virginia

Address 8663 Ruby Rise Pl, Bristow, VA 20136
Phone (703) 754-3668
Website Link http://dynacomservices.com
Hours

gcc error array subscript is above array bounds Warrenton, Virginia

So you must rewrite your function this way: uint32_t * get_pad_5( a_structure * my_struct) { return my_struct->pad; } share|improve this answer answered Oct 8 '12 at 16:12 ThomasMore 1286 Finding out where and why it is created > would help to figure out a fix. I am not sure which way to go at this point. And also I believe that the second problem makes much more confusion for a newbie. –ThomasMore Oct 8 '12 at 16:58 add a comment| up vote 5 down vote When you

What is it? The original one from this bug's description remains. It happens when we have both vector and scalar versions of code. Probably, the block is unreachable, but it would be better to > > not create it in the first place.

I think these warnings are exactly like uninitialized warnings. Comment 2 Dmitry Gorbachev 2013-11-14 17:56:50 UTC Another testcase: ============= 8< ============= extern char *bar[17]; int foo(int argc, char **argv) { int i; int n = 0; for (i = 0; Radius of Convergence of Infinite Series What is the first movie to show this hard work message at the very end? Comment 33 Manuel López-Ibáñez 2015-09-22 20:44:15 UTC (In reply to baoshan from comment #32) > And I think it is not wrong, it's just inaccurate, and it is not making any

Modulo % with big number- Infinity error - Javascript Compute the kangaroo sequence Physically locating the server Relation between representations of p-adic groups and affine Hecke algebras Exploded Suffixes How can Loop 2 iterates at most 6 times. Warning disappears if: *) remove f1() call in "if ( i>=SIZE && f1() )" *) make "return true" instead of "throw 1" *) inline struct A constructor, "inline A::A(unsigned i)" *) Comment 36 Patrick Palka 2016-03-28 02:22:15 UTC Patch posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-03/msg01439.html Comment 37 Domani Hannes 2016-03-29 19:02:14 UTC With the new patch there is still a warning with this example: ===============

With gcc 4.5.2 I can reproduce, though interestingly I get the warning with testc and not with testr. Comment 28 Manuel López-Ibáñez 2015-09-18 18:32:10 UTC (In reply to baoshan from comment #27) > > It seems GCC at some moment unrolls the loop and creates such block with > Status: RESOLVED FIXED Alias: None Product: gcc Classification: Unclassified Component: tree-optimization (show other bugs) Version: 4.6.0 Importance: P2 normal Target Milestone: 4.8.0 Assignee: Not yet assigned to anyone URL: Keywords: Depends Description eidletni 2011-01-24 18:37:52 UTC Created attachment 23104 [details] c++ code $ g++ -v Using built-in specs.

Isn't there a great deal of such code? Note that in contrast to PR43949 in this case the array subscript *could* be above array bounds depending on how g() is called, but in the code snippet itself there is I hope other more knowledgeable devs will chime in, I'm out of ideas. Which version of GCC are you using?

The problem is at this time it use array ref(infer_loop_bounds_from_ref) to infer the iterate times which is not accurate. And I think it is not wrong, it's just inaccurate, and it is not making any wrong result in running time. You probably need to debug vrp or (using -fopt-info) the point where gcc gives: test.c:7:3: note: loop turned into non-loop; it never loops. Comment 5 Jakub Jelinek 2014-12-19 13:25:19 UTC GCC 4.8.4 has been released.

Added: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-6.C branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-12.c branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-13.c branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr64199.c branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr64365.c branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr64493.c branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vect/pr64495.c Modified: branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/ChangeLog branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/fold-const.c branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/tree-data-ref.c branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c branches/gcc-4_9-branch/gcc/tree-vrp.c Comment 11 Richard Biener 2015-02-24 12:49:43 UTC Author: rguenth Date: Tue Feb 24 12:49:11 2015 New With gcc 4.5.2 I can reproduce, though interestingly I get the warning > with testc and not with testr. Format For Printing -XML -Clone This Bug -Top of page Home | New | Browse | Search | [?] | Reports | Help | NewAccount | Log In Remember [x] | I had a fairly convolution code that gcc managed to figure out and warned "error array subscript is above array bounds.

I don't think they should have any influence on the array_size. Comment 20 Manuel López-Ibáñez 2015-09-11 00:29:50 UTC (In reply to baoshan from comment #19) > We can see the value of up_sub is represented as unsigned int value > 4294967291 which These are the exact points for the warnings: .../Eigen/src/Eigenvalues/EigenSolver.h:504:9: warning: array subscript is above array bounds .../Eigen/src/Eigenvalues/EigenSolver.h:505:9: warning: array subscript is above array bounds .../Eigen/src/Eigenvalues/EigenSolver.h:505:9: warning: array subscript is above array Changing them to int makes warnings disappear Comment 2 Manuel López-Ibáñez 2014-12-23 20:19:18 UTC I cannot reproduce this in GCC 5.0 with or without -msse3 (on x86_64-linux-gnu).

Animal Shelter in Java Word with the largest number of different phonetic vowel sounds What actually are virtual particles? But it also isn't the way we handle other warnings (in particular the uninitialized variable uses). And later vrp complains on those unrolled iterations. Format For Printing -XML -Clone This Bug -Top of page Home | New | Browse | Search | [?] | Reports | Help | NewAccount | Log In Remember [x] |

You might argue that the wording should be 'may be' in all cases where the offending statement might not be executed (which is certainly undecidable as you can't know whether the So we transform g() to if (i >= 3) f(); tem1 = c[i]; if (i >= 3) { f(); tem2 = c[i]; } else tem2 = tem1; return tem1 + tem2; Is there any job that can't be automated? Then I guess we should just point out people to static analysis tools, like http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/, which are more suited for this task than GCC.

Comment 3 Petr.Salinger 2012-07-16 07:28:26 UTC Created attachment 27801 [details] another testcase - from xorg mouse driver Comment 4 Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-10-23 22:33:15 UTC (In reply to comment #3) > Created I believe we have plenty of dups of this report - it is usually the last peeled iteration we warn for. How should I deal with a difficult group and a DM that doesn't help? This looks > not right to me.

Format For Printing -XML -Clone This Bug -Top of page First Last Prev Next This bug is not in your last search results. However, it failes to consider the fact that on line 15, i is guaranteed to be less than 3 by the condition on line 14, so out of bounds subscript is