* Further refinement to -Wswitch-unreachable
@ 2016-05-27 7:53 Marek Polacek
2016-05-27 15:29 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Marek Polacek @ 2016-05-27 7:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: GCC Patches, Jason Merrill, Joseph Myers; +Cc: Martin Sebor
Martin complained that -Wswitch-unreachable wouldn't warn on try-blocks,
either compiler-generated or user-written. This patch, which looks into
GIMPLE_TRY's body, seems to DTRT for both.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
2016-05-26 Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
* gimplify.c (gimplify_switch_expr): Also handle GIMPLE_TRY.
* c-c++-common/Wswitch-unreachable-3.c: New test.
* g++.dg/warn/Wswitch-unreachable-1.C: New test.
diff --git gcc/gimplify.c gcc/gimplify.c
index 8316bb8..8b7dddc 100644
--- gcc/gimplify.c
+++ gcc/gimplify.c
@@ -1609,10 +1609,17 @@ gimplify_switch_expr (tree *expr_p, gimple_seq *pre_p)
while (gimple_code (seq) == GIMPLE_BIND)
seq = gimple_bind_body (as_a <gbind *> (seq));
gimple *stmt = gimple_seq_first_stmt (seq);
- enum gimple_code code = gimple_code (stmt);
- if (code != GIMPLE_LABEL && code != GIMPLE_TRY)
+ if (gimple_code (stmt) == GIMPLE_TRY)
{
- if (code == GIMPLE_GOTO
+ /* A compiler-generated cleanup or a user-written try block.
+ Try to get the first statement in its try-block, for better
+ location. */
+ if ((seq = gimple_try_eval (stmt)))
+ stmt = gimple_seq_first_stmt (seq);
+ }
+ if (gimple_code (stmt) != GIMPLE_LABEL)
+ {
+ if (gimple_code (stmt) == GIMPLE_GOTO
&& TREE_CODE (gimple_goto_dest (stmt)) == LABEL_DECL
&& DECL_ARTIFICIAL (gimple_goto_dest (stmt)))
/* Don't warn for compiler-generated gotos. These occur
diff --git gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wswitch-unreachable-3.c gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wswitch-unreachable-3.c
index e69de29..3748701 100644
--- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wswitch-unreachable-3.c
+++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wswitch-unreachable-3.c
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+
+extern void f (int *, int);
+
+void
+g (int i)
+{
+ switch (i)
+ {
+ int a[3];
+ __builtin_memset (a, 0, sizeof a); /* { dg-warning "statement will never be executed" } */
+
+ default:
+ f (a, 3);
+ }
+}
diff --git gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wswitch-unreachable-1.C gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wswitch-unreachable-1.C
index e69de29..99d9a83 100644
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wswitch-unreachable-1.C
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wswitch-unreachable-1.C
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+// { dg-do compile }
+
+extern int j;
+
+void
+f (int i)
+{
+ switch (i) // { dg-warning "statement will never be executed" }
+ {
+ try
+ {
+ }
+ catch (...)
+ {
+ }
+ case 1:;
+ }
+}
+
+void
+g (int i)
+{
+ switch (i)
+ {
+ try
+ {
+ j = 42; // { dg-warning "statement will never be executed" }
+ }
+ catch (...)
+ {
+ }
+ case 1:;
+ }
+}
Marek
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Further refinement to -Wswitch-unreachable
2016-05-27 7:53 Further refinement to -Wswitch-unreachable Marek Polacek
@ 2016-05-27 15:29 ` Jason Merrill
2016-05-31 14:26 ` Marek Polacek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2016-05-27 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marek Polacek, GCC Patches, Joseph Myers; +Cc: Martin Sebor
On 05/26/2016 02:44 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> + if (gimple_code (stmt) == GIMPLE_TRY)
> {
> + /* A compiler-generated cleanup or a user-written try block.
> + Try to get the first statement in its try-block, for better
> + location. */
> + if ((seq = gimple_try_eval (stmt)))
> + stmt = gimple_seq_first_stmt (seq);
Should this loop? If there are two variables declared, do we get two
try blocks?
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Further refinement to -Wswitch-unreachable
2016-05-27 15:29 ` Jason Merrill
@ 2016-05-31 14:26 ` Marek Polacek
2016-05-31 15:50 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Marek Polacek @ 2016-05-31 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Merrill; +Cc: GCC Patches, Joseph Myers, Martin Sebor
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:41:51AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 05/26/2016 02:44 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > + if (gimple_code (stmt) == GIMPLE_TRY)
> > {
> > + /* A compiler-generated cleanup or a user-written try block.
> > + Try to get the first statement in its try-block, for better
> > + location. */
> > + if ((seq = gimple_try_eval (stmt)))
> > + stmt = gimple_seq_first_stmt (seq);
>
> Should this loop? If there are two variables declared, do we get two try
> blocks?
It looks like we get only one try block, so this doesn't have to loop. But I
at least added a new test to make sure we warn even with more decls.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
2016-05-31 Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
* gimplify.c (gimplify_switch_expr): Also handle GIMPLE_TRY.
* c-c++-common/Wswitch-unreachable-3.c: New test.
* g++.dg/warn/Wswitch-unreachable-1.C: New test.
diff --git gcc/gimplify.c gcc/gimplify.c
index 8316bb8..8b7dddc 100644
--- gcc/gimplify.c
+++ gcc/gimplify.c
@@ -1609,10 +1609,17 @@ gimplify_switch_expr (tree *expr_p, gimple_seq *pre_p)
while (gimple_code (seq) == GIMPLE_BIND)
seq = gimple_bind_body (as_a <gbind *> (seq));
gimple *stmt = gimple_seq_first_stmt (seq);
- enum gimple_code code = gimple_code (stmt);
- if (code != GIMPLE_LABEL && code != GIMPLE_TRY)
+ if (gimple_code (stmt) == GIMPLE_TRY)
{
- if (code == GIMPLE_GOTO
+ /* A compiler-generated cleanup or a user-written try block.
+ Try to get the first statement in its try-block, for better
+ location. */
+ if ((seq = gimple_try_eval (stmt)))
+ stmt = gimple_seq_first_stmt (seq);
+ }
+ if (gimple_code (stmt) != GIMPLE_LABEL)
+ {
+ if (gimple_code (stmt) == GIMPLE_GOTO
&& TREE_CODE (gimple_goto_dest (stmt)) == LABEL_DECL
&& DECL_ARTIFICIAL (gimple_goto_dest (stmt)))
/* Don't warn for compiler-generated gotos. These occur
diff --git gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wswitch-unreachable-3.c gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wswitch-unreachable-3.c
index e69de29..c53cb10 100644
--- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wswitch-unreachable-3.c
+++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wswitch-unreachable-3.c
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+
+extern void f (int *);
+
+void
+g (int i)
+{
+ switch (i)
+ {
+ int a[3];
+ __builtin_memset (a, 0, sizeof a); /* { dg-warning "statement will never be executed" } */
+
+ default:
+ f (a);
+ }
+
+ switch (i)
+ {
+ int a[3];
+ int b[3];
+ int c[3];
+ b[1] = 60; /* { dg-warning "statement will never be executed" } */
+
+ default:
+ f (a);
+ f (b);
+ f (c);
+ }
+}
diff --git gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wswitch-unreachable-1.C gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wswitch-unreachable-1.C
index e69de29..99d9a83 100644
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wswitch-unreachable-1.C
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wswitch-unreachable-1.C
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+// { dg-do compile }
+
+extern int j;
+
+void
+f (int i)
+{
+ switch (i) // { dg-warning "statement will never be executed" }
+ {
+ try
+ {
+ }
+ catch (...)
+ {
+ }
+ case 1:;
+ }
+}
+
+void
+g (int i)
+{
+ switch (i)
+ {
+ try
+ {
+ j = 42; // { dg-warning "statement will never be executed" }
+ }
+ catch (...)
+ {
+ }
+ case 1:;
+ }
+}
Marek
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Further refinement to -Wswitch-unreachable
2016-05-31 14:26 ` Marek Polacek
@ 2016-05-31 15:50 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2016-05-31 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marek Polacek; +Cc: GCC Patches, Joseph Myers, Martin Sebor
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:41:51AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 05/26/2016 02:44 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> > + if (gimple_code (stmt) == GIMPLE_TRY)
>> > {
>> > + /* A compiler-generated cleanup or a user-written try block.
>> > + Try to get the first statement in its try-block, for better
>> > + location. */
>> > + if ((seq = gimple_try_eval (stmt)))
>> > + stmt = gimple_seq_first_stmt (seq);
>>
>> Should this loop? If there are two variables declared, do we get two try
>> blocks?
>
> It looks like we get only one try block, so this doesn't have to loop. But I
> at least added a new test to make sure we warn even with more decls.
>
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
OK.
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-05-31 14:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-05-27 7:53 Further refinement to -Wswitch-unreachable Marek Polacek
2016-05-27 15:29 ` Jason Merrill
2016-05-31 14:26 ` Marek Polacek
2016-05-31 15:50 ` Jason Merrill
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).