[Bug libstdc++/31246] New: Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[Bug libstdc++/31246] New: Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[sylvain dot pion at sophia dot inria dot fr]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1683 bytes --]

Compiling the following with "-Wunreachable-code -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG"
--------------------------
#include <vector>

int main()
{
  std::vector<int>::iterator a;
}
--------------------------

produces the warning :

--------------------------
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../../include/c++/4.1.1/debug/safe_iterator.h:
In constructor ‘__gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator<_Iterator,
_Sequence>::_Safe_iterator() [with _Iterator =
__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<int*, __gnu_norm::vector<int, std::allocator<int>
> >, _Sequence = __gnu_debug_def::vector<int, std::allocator<int> >]’:
/usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../../include/c++/4.1.1/debug/safe_iterator.h:103:
warning: will never be executed
--------------------------

I tried g++ 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.  They all produce this annoying warning.

Looking at the code in safe_iterator.h shows nothing obviously wrong.
This might even suggest a bug in -Wunreachable-code, although I categorized
it for now in libstdc++, as I have not been able to isolate a small piece
of code that reproduces the problem.


Some other compilers tend to have the equivalent of -Wunreachable-code
by default.  It would be nice if it worked well, and if it was enabled
by -Wall or -Wextra.


-- 
           Summary: Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: libstdc++
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: sylvain dot pion at sophia dot inria dot fr
  GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug libstdc++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-17 16:58 -------
Lets look at the IR:
;; Function __gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator<_Iterator, _Sequence>::_Safe_iterator()
[with _Iterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<int*, __gnu_norm::vector<int,
std::allocator<int> > >, _Sequence = __gnu_debug_def::vector<int,
std::allocator<int> >]
(_ZN11__gnu_debug14_Safe_iteratorIN9__gnu_cxx17__normal_iteratorIPiN10__gnu_norm6vectorIiSaIiEEEEEN15__gnu_debug_def6vectorIiS6_EEEC4Ev
*INTERNAL* )
;; enabled by -tree-original

{
  <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt
  __base_ctor  (&((struct _Safe_iterator<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<int*,
__gnu_norm::vector<int, std::allocator<int> > >,__gnu_debug_def::vector<int,
std::allocator<int> > > *) this)->D.12082) >>>
>>;
  try
    {
      <<cleanup_point <<< Unknown tree: expr_stmt
  __comp_ctor  (&((struct _Safe_iterator<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<int*,
__gnu_norm::vector<int, std::allocator<int> > >,__gnu_debug_def::vector<int,
std::allocator<int> > > *) this)->_M_current) >>>
>>;
    }
  catch
    {
      __base_dtor  ((struct _Safe_iterator_base *) this);
    }
}


and the constructor for ->M_current:
__gnu_debug::_Safe_iterator<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<int*,
__gnu_norm::vector<int, std::allocator<int> > >, __gnu_debug_def::vector<int,
std::allocator<int> > >::~_Safe_iterator() (this, __in_chrg)
{
  struct _Safe_iterator_base * this.102;

  [/usr/include/c++/4.0.0/debug/safe_iterator.h : 65] {
    [/usr/include/c++/4.0.0/debug/safe_iterator.h : 65] try
      {

      }
    finally
      {
        [/usr/include/c++/4.0.0/debug/safe_iterator.h : 65] this.102 = (struct
_Safe_iterator_base *) this;
        [/usr/include/c++/4.0.0/debug/safe_iterator.h : 65] __base_dtor 
(this.102);
      }
  }
  [/usr/include/c++/4.0.0/debug/safe_iterator.h : 65] <D12095>:;
}


So the constructor for that cannot throw so the catch part is removed in both
cases.

The warning is not strange and is correct in that the __base_dtor cannot be
called ever.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug libstdc++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[sylvain dot pion at sophia dot inria dot fr]

------- Comment #2 from sylvain dot pion at sophia dot inria dot fr  2007-03-17 17:26 -------
Trying further, I noticed that simply default constructing an std::vector<int>,
even without the debug mode _GLIBCXX_DEBUG, generates also a bunch (14 !) of
these warnings.

Andrew, I did not follow all the details of your explanation.  I don't
understand if there is finally a problem with the libstdc++ code or not.
And if there is, what should be done.

Is this a warning meant to be useful at all, or meant for GCC developers?

How do we get rid of this warning for the simplest C++ code I showed?


Other compilers are able to warn for unreachable code in better conditions.
for example, they warn for "int f() { return 1 ; return -1; }", and I
was trying to see if GCC was able to generate the same kind of warnings.
I only found -Wunreachable-code, but so far it proves unusable for C++.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug libstdc++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[chris at bubblescope dot net]

------- Comment #3 from chris at bubblescope dot net  2007-03-17 17:46 -------
This is a general problem I've come across with templates. You commonly want to
try/catch around some operation, but when you have templated on a simple type,
like int, then it's easy to find out that no throwing can ever occur, and for
this type the try/catch is a waste of time.

I'm not sure what the best way of fixing this is.


-- 

chris at bubblescope dot net changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |chris at bubblescope dot net


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug libstdc++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[chris at bubblescope dot net]

------- Comment #4 from chris at bubblescope dot net  2007-03-17 18:07 -------
Here is a minimal code example:

#include <new>

int* get_ptr(void* ptr)
{
  return new(ptr) int();
}

Which gives (on my computer)

/usr/include/c++/4.0.0/new: In function 'int* get_ptr(void*)':
/usr/include/c++/4.0.0/new:94: warning: will never be executed

But a similar problem exists in much of the templated code, and in general.

The real problem I think here is that the system_header pragma is still broken
for templates. If that was fixed, this warning would go away.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug libstdc++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

------- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2007-03-17 20:40 -------
Note, however, that, as far as I can see, such try/catch are *not* in the
library code proper, but *all* synthesized by the C++ front-end. Is it so weird
to imagine for the C++ front-end to automatically suppress warning in such
case? I think this is a very general issue, which goes even beyond the already
general issue about pragma system headers: if the user writes such code and
sees such kind of warnings becomes *completely* confused. Gaby, do you have an
opinion?


-- 

pcarlini at suse dot de changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |gdr at integrable-solutions
                   |                            |dot net


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

------- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2007-03-17 20:48 -------
And I'm recategorizing as C++: either (as I strongly believe) a very general
diagnostic issue, or maybe a duplicate of C++/30500: certainly there is nothing
we can do on the library side to "fix" the implementation of placement new
itself (per Chris' comment #4. By the way, in that specific case I think we are
missing the pragma from the header, because there are no templates involved and
should work. But that's not the point).


-- 

pcarlini at suse dot de changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component|libstdc++                   |c++


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu]

------- Comment #7 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu  2007-03-17 23:35 -------
Subject: Re:  Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

"pcarlini at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

| Note, however, that, as far as I can see, such try/catch are *not* in the
| library code proper, but *all* synthesized by the C++ front-end. Is it so
weird
| to imagine for the C++ front-end to automatically suppress warning in such
| case? I think this is a very general issue, which goes even beyond the
already
| general issue about pragma system headers: if the user writes such code and
| sees such kind of warnings becomes *completely* confused. Gaby, do you have
an
| opinion?

I agree with you Paolo.  The front-end should make sure that its
artefacts don't adversily affect diagnostics we emit.

-- Gaby


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-18 05:38 -------
>I agree with you Paolo.  The front-end should make sure that its
> artefacts don't adversily affect diagnostics we emit.

I agree to some extend.  The reason why the try/catch is there is because of
what the C++ standard says should happen and not really an artafact of what the
GCC is doing really.  When I first say this bug I was going to say this should
not warned about, but when I looked into it a little more, I was thinking the
warning is correct except for the fact, there is no way of working around the
issue.

I think we need to decide what -Wunreachable-code actually means, does it mean
if there is a way to "fix" the code, then warn about unreachable code or does
it mean to warn about code which is even hard to work around like in templates
and constructors?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-19 13:56 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> >I agree with you Paolo.  The front-end should make sure that its
> > artefacts don't adversily affect diagnostics we emit.
> 
> I agree to some extend.  The reason why the try/catch is there is because of
> what the C++ standard says should happen and not really an artafact of what the
> GCC is doing really.  When I first say this bug I was going to say this should
> not warned about, but when I looked into it a little more, I was thinking the
> warning is correct except for the fact, there is no way of working around the
> issue.
> 
> I think we need to decide what -Wunreachable-code actually means, does it mean
> if there is a way to "fix" the code, then warn about unreachable code or does
> it mean to warn about code which is even hard to work around like in templates
> and constructors?
> 

And I think that we should not warn about generated code. No matter if it is
generated by optimisers or front-ends. If it is not user code, then there
should be no warning. In that sense, this is similar to PR31227.


-- 

manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |manu at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu]

------- Comment #10 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu  2007-03-19 15:19 -------
Subject: Re:  Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

"manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

| And I think that we should not warn about generated code. No matter if it is
| generated by optimisers or front-ends. If it is not user code, then there
| should be no warning.

I fully agree.

-- Gaby


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-19 22:31 -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> 
> I fully agree.

I am not agreeing fully,  This warning is only because we can prove something
is pure/const/cannot throw and that only comes because of simple optimization. 
What about this case:

int f(int a) { return a;}

int g(int b)
{
  try
  {
   return f(b);
  }catch (...) { return 0; }
}

Should we warn about the catch being unreachable?
This is the same issue as -Wuninitialized warning in that we warn about a lot
of cases where we should not.  I think this is why this option is not turned on
via either -W or -Wall, it is hard sometimes to work around.

Take even more extrem example where templates come into play:


int f(int a) { return a;}
int f(float a);

template <typename a>
int g(a b)
{
  try
  {
   return f(a);
  }catch (...) { return 0; }
}

int d = g<int>(10);

Should we warn that the catch case is unreachable, I think so as it is obvious
but how do we avoid it, well you can specialize the template but that could get
messy.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

Re: [Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

| (In reply to comment #10)
| > 
| > I fully agree.
| 
| I am not agreeing fully,

Well, you've got a problem.

[...]

| What about this case:

There is a distinction betwen user code and compiler-generated codes.
Warning about compiler-generated codes is pointless.

-- Gaby

[Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu]

------- Comment #12 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu  2007-03-19 22:45 -------
Subject: Re:  Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

| (In reply to comment #10)
| > 
| > I fully agree.
| 
| I am not agreeing fully,

Well, you've got a problem.

[...]

| What about this case:

There is a distinction betwen user code and compiler-generated codes.
Warning about compiler-generated codes is pointless.

-- Gaby


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-19 23:13 -------
Andrew, as you say, -Wunreachable-code is not enabled by -Wall. The user has to
give it explicitly. And in your testcases the code is not reachable. So in that
case, it could be argued whether the warning is warranted or not. So, yes, you
got a point. But... that is not what this PR is about.

This PR is that the user cannot see the code we are warning about. Even if it
were code with an easy workaround unlike your testcases, that doesn't matter at
all, we should not emit the warning.


-- 

manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2007-03-19 23:13:32
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-19 23:18 -------
But the user can see the code, it is what is produced by what the C++ standard
says is produced, now you could say the user has no control over fixing it, it
is also true with the template case.  Both cases are hard to fix without much
thought.  There is also something like:

static inline int f(int a)
{
  if (a)
   return g();
  return 0;
}


int h(void)
{
  return f(0);
}

With -Wunreachable-code -O1, we warn that we cannot reach the line containing
return g();  Now should we, it is the same case, how can an user fix that code
if the static inline function comes in from a header, they cannot. 
-Wunreachable-code warning is useless except if you want to see if you do
coverage.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #15 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-19 23:35 -------
Andrew, you have Paolo and Gabriel expressing that the warning should not be
emitted because the code is generated. Then you close as wontfix. Sometimes I
don't understand you at all.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu]

------- Comment #16 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu  2007-03-19 23:40 -------
Subject: Re:  Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:

| But the user can see the code,

Andrew --

   When you don't understand an issue, please refrain from offering
your help to close it.

-- Gaby


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

------- Comment #17 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2007-03-19 23:43 -------
WONTFIX is simply ridicolous.


-- 

pcarlini at suse dot de changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #18 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-08-23 15:59 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> Compiling the following with "-Wunreachable-code -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG"
> --------------------------
> #include <vector>
> 
> int main()
> {
>   std::vector<int>::iterator a;
> }
> --------------------------
> 
> produces the warning :

I cannot reproduce this in GCC 4.4.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #19 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-08-23 16:01 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> Here is a minimal code example:
> 
> #include <new>
> 
> int* get_ptr(void* ptr)
> {
>   return new(ptr) int();
> }

I can reproduce this, though.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 689 bytes --]



------- Comment #20 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-08-23 16:13 -------
For testcase in comment #4 I get 2 warnings now:

home/manuel/test2/src/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/pr31246-2.C: In function ‘int*
get_ptr(void*)’:
/home/manuel/test2/src/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/pr31246-2.C:8: warning: will
never be executed

/home/manuel/test2/src/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/new: In function ‘void* operator
new(size_t, void*)’:
/home/manuel/test2/src/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/new:105: warning: will never be
executed

libsupc++/new does not contain #pragma GCC system_headers, so even using
warning_at doesn't suppress the warning.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #21 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-08-23 16:21 -------
If gimple stmts do not have the equivalent of DECL_ARTIFICIAL, then the C++
front-end should use gimple_set_no_warning(stmt) when generating such
constructs. So, anyone knows where this comes from?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #22 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-08-23 17:24 -------
In addition, __cxa_call_unexpected should probably have both TREE_NO_WARNING
and DECL_ARTIFICIAL set but this is orthogonal because at the point of the
warning we should not be testing that.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

[paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com]

------- Comment #23 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com  2008-08-23 18:43 -------
To be clear, there are no #pragma GCC system_header at all in the entire
libsupc++ directory. I hope we don't have to begin...


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] Strange -Wunreachable-code warnings

[paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com]

------- Comment #24 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com  2008-08-23 18:45 -------
I'm going to tweak a bit the Summary, seems misleading now.


-- 

paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Strange -Wunreachable-code  |Strange -Wunreachable-code
                   |warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG |warnings


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] -Wunreachable-code warnings for compiler-generated code

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #25 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-08-23 18:50 -------
This looks clearer to me. Maybe Jason or Mark have some idea where this code is
generated. It should be clear that it is compiler-generated and we can set
DECL_ARTIFICIAL or TREE_NO_WARNING. Then we just have to make sure to propagate
that. And finally, check it before warning.


-- 

manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Strange -Wunreachable-code  |-Wunreachable-code warnings
                   |warnings                    |for compiler-generated code


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] -Wunreachable-code warnings for compiler-generated code

[gdr at integrable-solutions dot net]

------- Comment #26 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net  2008-08-26 05:45 -------
Subject: Re:  Strange -Wunreachable-code warning with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 1:43 PM, paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> ------- Comment #23 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com  2008-08-23 18:43 -------
> To be clear, there are no #pragma GCC system_header at all in the entire
> libsupc++ directory. I hope we don't have to begin...

I think I agree.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] -Wunreachable-code warnings for compiler-generated code

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #27 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-10-22 08:35 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> Note, however, that, as far as I can see, such try/catch are *not* in the
> library code proper, but *all* synthesized by the C++ front-end.

Does anyone has any idea where in the C++ front-end this is synthesized?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] -Wunreachable-code warnings for compiler-generated code

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #28 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-02-07 21:07 -------
There is a patch here:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-10/msg00972.html


-- 

manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                URL|                            |http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
                   |                            |patches/2008-
                   |                            |10/msg00972.html
           Keywords|                            |patch


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] -Wunreachable-code warnings for compiler-generated code

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1206 bytes --]



------- Comment #29 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-07-07 22:18 -------
Subject: Bug 31246

Author: manu
Date: Tue Jul  7 22:18:35 2009
New Revision: 149354

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149354
Log:
2009-07-08  Manuel López-Ibáñez  <manu@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR c++/31246
        * gimplify.c (gimplify_expr): Propagate no_warning flag when
        gimplifying.
        * gimple (gimple_build_call_from_tree): Likewise.
        * tree-cfg.c (remove_useless_stmts_warn_notreached): Check
        no_warning flag before warning.
cp/
        * init.c (build_new_1): Set TREE_NO_WARNING for compiler-generated
        code.
        * cp-gimplify.c (genericize_eh_spec_block): Likewise.

testsuite/      
        * g++.dg/warn/pr31246.C: New.
        * g++.dg/warn/pr31246-2.C: New.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/pr31246-2.C
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/pr31246.C
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c
    trunk/gcc/cp/init.c
    trunk/gcc/gimple.c
    trunk/gcc/gimplify.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/tree-cfg.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246

[Bug c++/31246] -Wunreachable-code warnings for compiler-generated code

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #30 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-07-07 22:20 -------
FIXED in GCC 4.5.


-- 

manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31246