I recently upgraded to GCC 4.4 (MinGW TDM build) and now the follow code produces these warning:
In member function 'void Console::print(const std::string&)':
warning: array subscript is above array bounds
Here's the code:
void Console::print( const std::string& str ) {
std::string newLine( str );
if( newLine.size() > MAX_LINE_LENGTH ) {
sf::Uint32 stringSize = newLine.size();
for( sf::Uint32 insertPos = MAX_LINE_LENGTH;
insertPos < stringSize; insertPos += MAX_LINE_LENGTH ) {
newLine.insert( insertPos, "\n" );
}
}
StringList tokens;
boost::split( tokens, newLine, boost::is_any_of("\n") );
for( StringList::iterator it = tokens.begin();
it != tokens.end(); ++it ) {
addLine( *it );
}
}
Any ideas?
It is the optimizations that are doing it...
Also it appears to be this line which is causing it:
boost::split( tokens, newLine, boost::is_any_of("\n") );
Ah yes, I found it, it is the argument for boost::is_any_of(), by wrapping it in a string() constructor the warning goes away, thank you all for your help :)
boost::split( tokens, newLine, boost::is_any_of( string( "\n" ) ) );
Got the same error. As a workaround I replaced
with
which might also be slightly more efficient.
Could have something to do with one or more of these GCC bugs:
GCC bugzilla search results for "Warning: array subscript is above array bounds"
Not all of them are valid, but there are some fixed ones if you search around, too:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37861
So I'm pretty sure there's something going on there. Based on the comments, I'd try compiling without optimisation and see if it goes away.
I got a spurious bounds warning using one of the standard algorithms (std::remove, I think) and passing iterator parameters:
which I'm pretty sure are in bounds. It was only in toy code, though, so I just bodged around it. If GCC really is throwing dodgy warnings you'll just have to inspect your code extra-carefully until it's fixed.
I notice your loop here is altering the length of the string, but not updating the loop termination condition. Could this be the source of your issue?