From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9624 invoked by alias); 6 May 2010 11:30:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 9471 invoked by uid 48); 6 May 2010 11:30:09 -0000 Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 11:30:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100506113009.9470.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: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" 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/msg00563.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 11:30 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > (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? Huh. In theory yes. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44011