From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10270 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2012 19:11:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 10259 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Feb 2012 19:11:16 -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; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:11:04 +0000 From: "joseph.h.garvin at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/52299] New: GCC warns on compile time division by zero erroneously Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:00:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: joseph.h.garvin at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2012-02/txt/msg01821.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D52299 Bug #: 52299 Summary: GCC warns on compile time division by zero erroneously Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.4.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org ReportedBy: joseph.h.garvin@gmail.com Test case: template struct test { static const std::size_t a_ =3D x ? 10 / x : 10; }; Output from compiling: alignptrtest.cpp: In instantiation of =E2=80=98const size_t test<0ul>::a_= =E2=80=99: alignptrtest.cpp:11: instantiated from here alignptrtest.cpp:6: warning: division by zero The warning should be suppressed when zero is explicitly checked for. At runtime this could require fancy analysis that might be unreasonable to exp= ect, but since this is compile time it should be possible to know whether the division by 0 really occurs. Especially since it's smart enough to give the warning even when dividing by (x+1-1).