On 2011-12-29 16:20:48 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> To me this only proves that the compiler is not smart enough to see that
> (s >> 1 == 0) implies that ((s & 0xffff) == 0xffff) can not be true.
>
> Are you suggesting that the compiler should never warn if there is a
> conditional guarding the array access? Would that in practice be better
> or worse than the current behaviour?
I think there should be two different options:
* one that would trigger the warning if the compiler can prove
that there will always be an out-of-bound access when the
function is executed (unless the compiler can prove that the
function will never be executed);
* one that would trigger the warning if there may be an out-of-bound
access.
BTW, can the user inform the compiler that some condition holds?
i.e. some kind of assert() but specifically for the compiler.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
