public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/102291] [9/10/11/12 Regression] wrong overflow warning for compound expression conversion and bit_and expressions Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2021 14:07:58 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-102291-4-3twC4oG2De@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-102291-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102291 Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jason at gcc dot gnu.org, | |jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org, | |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I'm afraid I'm getting lost in what convert does though with the TREE_OVERFLOW flag. In the testcase, we have a cast of BIT_IOR_EXPR with (whatever, 0x80) and 0 int arguments to unsigned char. do_narrow is called and does: /* Don't do unsigned arithmetic where signed was wanted, or vice versa. Exception: if both of the original operands were unsigned then we can safely do the work as unsigned. Exception: shift operations take their type solely from the first argument. Exception: the LSHIFT_EXPR case above requires that we perform this operation unsigned lest we produce signed-overflow undefinedness. And we may need to do it as unsigned if we truncate to the original size. */ and as BIT_IOR_EXPR isn't listed, type == typex is unsigned and TREE_TYPE (arg0) and TREE_TYPE (arg1) are signed goes the: if (TYPE_UNSIGNED (typex)) typex = signed_type_for (typex); way. Those conversions create TYPE_OVERFLOW constant, even when there was nothing wrong in the source and because of the COMPOUND_EXPRs in there we don't manage to optimize those TYPE_OVERFLOW constants away and warn on it. For BIT_AND_EXPR/BIT_IOR_EXPR/BIT_XOR_EXPR, I must say I miss the reason why it would be ever a good idea to use typex = signed_type_for (typex), when we want unsigned result, just converting to that right away doesn't have any downsides I can come up with. But I wonder even about the other operations, do we really want to introduce TYPE_OVERFLOWs in such cases where the operations are originally on wider signed operands and are cast to some narrower unsigned type?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-06 14:07 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-09-11 15:43 [Bug c/102291] New: dubious overflow warning hv at crypt dot org 2021-09-11 19:33 ` [Bug c/102291] [9/10/11/12 Regression] wrong overflow warning for compound expression conversion and bit_and expressions pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-09-11 19:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-09-11 19:36 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-12-06 12:46 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-12-06 14:07 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2021-12-06 16:03 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-12-06 16:09 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-12-06 22:44 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com 2022-01-20 10:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-05-27 9:46 ` [Bug c/102291] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-06-28 10:46 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-07 10:40 ` [Bug c/102291] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-102291-4-3twC4oG2De@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).