From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17828 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2011 09:11:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 17816 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Aug 2011 09:11:16 -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, 16 Aug 2011 09:10:57 +0000 From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/50082] -Wstrict-overflow mishandles typedef Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:19:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- 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: 2011-08/txt/msg01411.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50082 --- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-08-16 09:10:12 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" writes: > > > I suppose the forwprop code wants to force a warning at -Wstrict-overflow=1 > > if the conditional becomes optimized to a constant at compile-time? > > Yes. But perhaps it is overly aggressive--are these conditionals being > optimized to a constant? Maybe the condition for the first argument to > fold_undefer_overflow_warnings needs to be fixed. In this case not. forwprop doesn't do anything more fancy than calling fold, so fold should already handle optimizing to a constant specially, no? So I guess the first argument to fold_undefer_overflow_warnings should be zero? I'll be posting a patch and CC you.