From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11102 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2011 20:13:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 11091 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Dec 2011 20:12:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 20:12:45 +0000 From: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 20:13:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: joseph at codesourcery dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.4.7 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 2011-12/txt/msg00669.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766 --- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-12-06 20:12:12 UTC --- On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, iant at google dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766 > > --- Comment #7 from iant at google dot com 2011-12-06 18:40:58 UTC --- > > I don't know about -fstrict-overflow, but maybe that should be separate > > (controlling whether, in cases where the default semantics are in effect, > > certain optimizations relating to overflow are made). > > That was my intent for -fno-strict-overflow: it does not change the > semantics, it just disables optimizations. Of course when -fwrapv or > -ftrapv are set, overflow behaviour is defined, so -fno-strict-overflow > does nothing. -fno-strict-overflow is only meaningful when neither > -fwrapv nor -ftrapv are set. As I understand it, -fno-strict-overflow also affects optimizations for pointer overflow in any of the three -fwrapv/-ftrapv/default modes (those modes only relate to integer arithmetic semantics, not anything for pointer arithmetic).