public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "daniel.marjamaki at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/30475] assert(int+100 > int) optimized away
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 12:26:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-30475-4-6q8Clo8YeG@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-30475-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30475
Daniel Marjamäki <daniel.marjamaki at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |daniel.marjamaki at gmail dot com
--- Comment #62 from Daniel Marjamäki <daniel.marjamaki at gmail dot com> ---
> I think using run-time warnings will miss a lot of bugs, compared to compile time warnings.
I fully agree. This current situation is just dangerous.
In my humble opinion, the optimisations should be disabled until proper
warnings are written.
It is no silver bullet but to give a little confidence in your code you can
currently use Cppcheck. Cppcheck writes a warning with id
invalidTestForOverflow for `int + 100 > int`.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-05 12:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <bug-30475-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2014-02-16 10:00 ` jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com
2021-01-05 12:26 ` daniel.marjamaki at gmail dot com [this message]
2021-01-05 12:56 ` daniel.marjamaki at gmail dot com
2021-01-05 13:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-05 13:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-06 10:37 ` daniel.marjamaki at gmail dot com
2007-01-15 19:43 [Bug c/30475] New: " felix-gcc at fefe dot de
2007-01-15 19:46 ` [Bug c/30475] " felix-gcc at fefe dot de
2007-01-15 19:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-15 19:50 ` felix-gcc at fefe dot de
2007-01-15 19:57 ` felix-gcc at fefe dot de
2007-01-15 20:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-16 4:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-16 7:00 ` pluto at agmk dot net
2007-01-16 7:24 ` gcc at mailinator dot com
2007-01-17 13:55 ` felix-gcc at fefe dot de
2007-01-17 14:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-17 14:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-17 15:21 ` felix-gcc at fefe dot de
2007-01-17 16:32 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-17 16:37 ` felix-gcc at fefe dot de
2007-01-17 16:54 ` erdgeist-gcc at erdgeist dot org
2007-01-17 16:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-17 17:03 ` felix-gcc at fefe dot de
2007-01-17 17:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-17 17:12 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-17 17:14 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2007-01-17 17:20 ` felix-gcc at fefe dot de
2007-01-17 17:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-17 18:23 ` felix-gcc at fefe dot de
2007-01-17 18:43 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-17 19:04 ` felix-gcc at fefe dot de
2007-01-17 19:18 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-18 15:20 ` felix-gcc at fefe dot de
2007-01-18 15:24 ` felix-gcc at fefe dot de
2007-01-18 17:36 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-21 8:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-21 12:23 ` andreas at andreas dot org
2007-01-21 12:49 ` andreas at andreas dot org
2007-01-21 13:53 ` felix-gcc at fefe dot de
2007-01-21 16:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-21 17:30 ` andreas at andreas dot org
2007-01-21 17:47 ` felix-gcc at fefe dot de
2007-01-21 18:16 ` pluto at agmk dot net
2007-01-21 19:46 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-21 20:14 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-21 21:52 ` tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-22 2:18 ` felix-gcc at fefe dot de
2007-01-22 2:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-22 13:02 ` felix-gcc at fefe dot de
2007-01-22 17:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-22 18:26 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-22 18:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-22 18:36 ` andreas at andreas dot org
2007-01-22 19:50 ` felix-gcc at fefe dot de
2007-01-22 20:16 ` ian at airs dot com
2007-01-22 22:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-22 23:10 ` andreas at andreas dot org
2007-01-23 0:46 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-03-08 1:03 ` js at linuxtv dot org
2007-03-08 1:14 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-03-08 16:23 ` js at linuxtv dot 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-30475-4-6q8Clo8YeG@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: link
Be 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).