public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/17544] New: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement
@ 2004-09-18 0:17 sebor at roguewave dot com
2004-09-18 0:20 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/17544] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 more replies)
0 siblings, 17 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: sebor at roguewave dot com @ 2004-09-18 0:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
The warning below is incorrect -- the program always reaches the flagged line.
Note that replacing the do statement with a for or while statement eliminates
the warning.
$ cat -n u.cpp && g++ -O -Wunreachable-code u.cpp && ./a.out a; echo $?
1 int main (int argc, char *argv[])
2 {
3 const char* const s = argc < 2 ? "" : argv [1];
4
5 int i = 0;
6
7 do {
8 ++i;
9 } while (i < s [0]);
10
11 return i;
12 }
13
u.cpp: In function `int main(int, char**)':
u.cpp:11: warning: will never be executed
97
--
Summary: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code
following a do statement
Product: gcc
Version: 3.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: sebor at roguewave dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: all
GCC host triplet: all
GCC target triplet: all
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17544
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/17544] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement
2004-09-18 0:17 [Bug c++/17544] New: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement sebor at roguewave dot com
@ 2004-09-18 0:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-18 0:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-18 0:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|c++ |rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17544
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/17544] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement
2004-09-18 0:17 [Bug c++/17544] New: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement sebor at roguewave dot com
2004-09-18 0:20 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/17544] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-09-18 0:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-04 12:29 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/17544] [4.0 Regression] " giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (14 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-09-18 0:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17544
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/17544] [4.0 Regression] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement
2004-09-18 0:17 [Bug c++/17544] New: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement sebor at roguewave dot com
2004-09-18 0:20 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/17544] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-18 0:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-04 12:29 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-10-04 12:37 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (13 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-10-04 12:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-04 12:28 -------
Confirmed, a regression on mainline. Simplified testcase:
----------------------------
int main (void) // 1
{ // 2
return 0; // 3
} // 4
----------------------------
17544.cc: In function `int main()':
17544.cc:4: warning: will never be executed
The warning is probably on the implicit return which is put at the end of the
definition of main by the compiler (main is allowed to not have an explicit
return statement).
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Known to fail| |4.0.0
Known to work| |3.4.2
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-10-04 12:29:00
date| |
Summary|incorrect -Wunreachable-code|[4.0 Regression] incorrect -
|warning for reachable code |Wunreachable-code warning
|following a do statement |for reachable code following
| |a do statement
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17544
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/17544] [4.0 Regression] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement
2004-09-18 0:17 [Bug c++/17544] New: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement sebor at roguewave dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-04 12:29 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/17544] [4.0 Regression] " giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2004-10-04 12:37 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-10-04 12:38 ` [Bug c++/17544] " giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (12 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-10-04 12:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-04 12:37 -------
The implicit return statement is added within cp/decl.c:finish_function:
if (DECL_MAIN_P (current_function_decl))
{
/* Make it so that `main' always returns 0 by default. */
#if VMS_TARGET
finish_return_stmt (integer_one_node);
#else
finish_return_stmt (integer_zero_node);
#endif
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17544
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17544] [4.0 Regression] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement
2004-09-18 0:17 [Bug c++/17544] New: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement sebor at roguewave dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-04 12:37 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2004-10-04 12:38 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-10-05 2:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-10-04 12:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-04 12:38 -------
Setting this as C++ bug, the C++ frontend should mark the statement in some
special way that middle-end can later detect to avoid the warning.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |giovannibajo at libero dot
| |it
Component|rtl-optimization |c++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17544
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17544] [4.0 Regression] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement
2004-09-18 0:17 [Bug c++/17544] New: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement sebor at roguewave dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-04 12:38 ` [Bug c++/17544] " giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2004-10-05 2:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-06 3:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-05 2:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-05 02:41 -------
I think -std=c99 will also cause it too, maybe we should mark this as compiler generated.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17544
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17544] [4.0 Regression] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement
2004-09-18 0:17 [Bug c++/17544] New: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement sebor at roguewave dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-05 2:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-06 3:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-06 13:49 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-06 3:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-06 03:50 -------
Yes this shows up in the C front-end also with -std=c99.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17544
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17544] [4.0 Regression] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement
2004-09-18 0:17 [Bug c++/17544] New: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement sebor at roguewave dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-06 3:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-06 13:49 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-09 22:59 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-06 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-06 13:49 -------
One thing to due or to try is to add a new function which finish the return expression with a location
which is unkown, tried the obvious push_srcloc/pop_srcloc but that would ICE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17544
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17544] [4.0 Regression] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement
2004-09-18 0:17 [Bug c++/17544] New: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement sebor at roguewave dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-06 13:49 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-09 22:59 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-20 1:11 ` [Bug middle-end/17544] [4.0 Regression] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for mains with a return statement steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-09 22:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-09 22:59 -------
This is another example of why it is a mistake to use the optimizers to issue
warnings about unreachable code, uninitialized variables, etc.
There is no easy fix for the general case. The front end cannot avoid emitting
the return statement in all cases in which the back end might determine it is
unnecessary. We do not have an equivalent of DECL_ARTIFICIAL for statements or
expressions so there is no good way to flag the compiler-generated return for
the middle end.
The short-term fix is probably to special-case the situation where the last
statement in main is a return, either in the middle end or in the front end.
The longer-term fix is to move this warning out of the back end.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17544
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17544] [4.0 Regression] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for mains with a return statement
2004-09-18 0:17 [Bug c++/17544] New: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement sebor at roguewave dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-09 22:59 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-20 1:11 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-20 1:12 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-20 1:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-20 01:11 -------
Reproduces for C with -std=c99.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|c++ |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17544
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17544] [4.0 Regression] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for mains with a return statement
2004-09-18 0:17 [Bug c++/17544] New: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement sebor at roguewave dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-20 1:11 ` [Bug middle-end/17544] [4.0 Regression] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for mains with a return statement steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-20 1:12 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-22 22:34 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-20 1:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-20 01:12 -------
>From pure annoyance with such a bug being unfixed for such a long
time, I'll just take this on. Probably putting a flag on the
compiler generated return statement is enough to make this silly
warning go away....
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |steven at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17544
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17544] [4.0 Regression] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for mains with a return statement
2004-09-18 0:17 [Bug c++/17544] New: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement sebor at roguewave dot com
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-20 1:12 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-22 22:34 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-23 1:19 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-22 22:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-22 22:34 -------
Spot the bug:
main ()
{
intD.0 D.1384;
# BLOCK 0, starting at line 3
# PRED: ENTRY
[t.c : 3] D.1384 = 0;
[t.c : 3] goto <bb 2> (<L0>);
# SUCC: 2
# BLOCK 1, starting at line 4
# PRED:
[t.c : 4] D.1384 = 0;
# SUCC: 2
# BLOCK 2
# PRED: 0 1
<L0>:;
return D.1384;
# SUCC: EXIT
}
Note how the compiler generated "return 0;" has a locus. Not giving
it one should fix it.
Testing a patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17544
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17544] [4.0 Regression] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for mains with a return statement
2004-09-18 0:17 [Bug c++/17544] New: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement sebor at roguewave dot com
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-22 22:34 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-23 1:19 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-31 10:38 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-23 1:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-23 01:19 -------
Look, no hands (or testing):
Index: cp/decl.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/cp/decl.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1346
diff -u -3 -p -r1.1346 decl.c
--- cp/decl.c 22 Dec 2004 03:34:53 -0000 1.1346
+++ cp/decl.c 23 Dec 2004 01:19:29 -0000
@@ -10631,12 +10631,19 @@ finish_function (int flags)
{
if (DECL_MAIN_P (current_function_decl))
{
- /* Make it so that `main' always returns 0 by default. */
+ tree stmt;
+
+ /* Make it so that `main' always returns 0 by default (or
+ 1 for VMS). */
#if VMS_TARGET
finish_return_stmt (integer_one_node);
#else
finish_return_stmt (integer_zero_node);
#endif
+ /* Hack. We don't want the middle-end to warn that this
+ return is unreachable, so put the statement on the
+ special line 0. */
+ annotate_with_file_line (stmt, input_filename, 0);
}
/* Finish dealing with exception specifiers. */
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17544
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17544] [4.0 Regression] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for mains with a return statement
2004-09-18 0:17 [Bug c++/17544] New: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement sebor at roguewave dot com
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-23 1:19 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-31 10:38 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-31 12:03 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-31 10:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-31 10:38 -------
Testing a patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17544
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17544] [4.0 Regression] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for mains with a return statement
2004-09-18 0:17 [Bug c++/17544] New: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement sebor at roguewave dot com
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-31 10:38 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-31 12:03 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-01 16:15 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-01 16:26 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-31 12:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-31 12:02 -------
(From update of attachment 7808)
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-12/msg02140.html
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #7808 is|0 |1
obsolete| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17544
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17544] [4.0 Regression] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for mains with a return statement
2004-09-18 0:17 [Bug c++/17544] New: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement sebor at roguewave dot com
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-31 12:03 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-01 16:15 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-01 16:26 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-01 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-01 16:15 -------
Subject: Bug 17544
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: steven@gcc.gnu.org 2005-01-01 16:15:24
Modified files:
gcc : ChangeLog c-decl.c emit-rtl.c tree-cfg.c
gcc/cp : ChangeLog decl.c
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
Added files:
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn: Wunreachable-code-1.C
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg: 20041231-1.c
Log message:
* emit-rtl.c (add_insn_before): Fix comment typo.
PR middle-end/17544
* c-decl.c (finish_function): If compiling C99, annotate the
compiler generated return with the current file name and line 0.
* tree-cfg.c (remove_useless_stmts_warn_notreached): Only warn if
the source line is greater than 0.
(remove_bb): Likewise.
cp/
PR middle-end/17544
* decl.c (finish_function): Fix comment. Annotate the compiler
generated return with the current file name and line 0.
testsuite/
* gcc.dg/20041231-1.C: New test.
* g++.dg/warn/Wunreachable-code-1.C: New test.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.6994&r2=2.6995
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/c-decl.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.620&r2=1.621
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/emit-rtl.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.432&r2=1.433
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-cfg.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.136&r2=2.137
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.4565&r2=1.4566
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/decl.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.1349&r2=1.1350
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.4830&r2=1.4831
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wunreachable-code-1.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/20041231-1.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17544
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/17544] [4.0 Regression] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for mains with a return statement
2004-09-18 0:17 [Bug c++/17544] New: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement sebor at roguewave dot com
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-01 16:15 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-01 16:26 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-01 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-01 16:26 -------
.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17544
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-01-01 16:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-09-18 0:17 [Bug c++/17544] New: incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for reachable code following a do statement sebor at roguewave dot com
2004-09-18 0:20 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/17544] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-09-18 0:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-04 12:29 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/17544] [4.0 Regression] " giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-10-04 12:37 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-10-04 12:38 ` [Bug c++/17544] " giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-10-05 2:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-06 3:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-06 13:49 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-09 22:59 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-20 1:11 ` [Bug middle-end/17544] [4.0 Regression] incorrect -Wunreachable-code warning for mains with a return statement steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-20 1:12 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-22 22:34 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-23 1:19 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-31 10:38 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-31 12:03 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-01 16:15 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-01 16:26 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).