From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 8EAA13858424; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 02:03:12 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8EAA13858424 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1667181792; bh=Tss0OLekS3tgoRRWgiVN2HkT8HfUMx/NH66pLuZPO1s=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=cRJEolN+/KNxqG6CBlk+EM26Zj6+vGczZNgSuVWV6qdloqZOPpUMoY3NQP6QVjkFQ XCbv/hdfULamlcVIy9OdDLSXKvEeoe1XJ/r1POXwArfDoEgzNFpO5o6biklqGws78w ua1uwMYd9hM67X/T0xBUP9y8Twn4TTomxKHHQijA= From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/107465] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Bogus warning: promoted bitwise complement of an unsigned value is always nonzero Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 02:03:12 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.3.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.5 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107465 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- I have not tested this at all but I suspect this patch will fix the issue: apinski@xeond:~/src/upstream-gcc/gcc/gcc/c-family$ git diff c-warn.cc diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-warn.cc b/gcc/c-family/c-warn.cc index 6742f447ff5..44d16111370 100644 --- a/gcc/c-family/c-warn.cc +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-warn.cc @@ -2302,8 +2302,8 @@ warn_for_sign_compare (location_t location, sop =3D fold_for_warn (sop); uop =3D fold_for_warn (uop); - STRIP_TYPE_NOPS (sop); - STRIP_TYPE_NOPS (uop); + STRIP_SIGN_NOPS (sop); + STRIP_SIGN_NOPS (uop); base_type =3D (TREE_CODE (result_type) =3D=3D COMPLEX_TYPE ? TREE_TYPE (result_type) : result_type); ------ CUT ---- And if it does, then I was right on the reason why typedef vs using unsigned short directly too.=