From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8170 invoked by alias); 6 May 2010 11:27:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 8076 invoked by uid 48); 6 May 2010 11:27:08 -0000 Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 11:27:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100506112708.8075.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/44011] missed optimization of min/max_expr or strict overflow warnings for intended code. In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "pluto at agmk dot net" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-05/txt/msg00562.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #2 from pluto at agmk dot net 2010-05-06 11:27 ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Place the pragma outside of the function (though it'll probably not help > due to the inlining). with new function attribute "warning(string...)" similary to existing "target" and "optimize" atributtes/pragmas it would be possible to manage warnings for intended parts of code. currently diagnostic system reports the location of strict-overflow, so i suppose it's able to check a function attributes and skip some warnings. am i right? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44011