From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30669 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2014 21:28:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 30654 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jul 2014 21:28:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 21:28:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s69LSaos008965 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 9 Jul 2014 17:28:36 -0400 Received: from [10.10.116.17] ([10.10.116.17]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s69LSZtw004977; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 17:28:35 -0400 Message-ID: <53BDB402.20309@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 21:28:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Manuel_L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez?= , Gcc Patch List CC: Richard Biener , Jakub Jelinek , "Joseph S. Myers" , Siddhesh Poyarekar , "Carlos O'Donell" , GNU C Library Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] -Wmemset-transposed-args (PR middle-end/61294) References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00663.txt.bz2 On 07/09/2014 10:40 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: >> All of these warnings (-Wsizeof-pointer-memaccess, -Wsizeof-array-argument >> and -Wmemset-transposed-args) are implemented in a hackish way, because we >> fold everything too early. Perhaps for such analysis we want a FOLDED_EXPR >> which would have arguments what it has been folded to and the original tree, >> for the purposes of code generation the first argument would be used and >> the second one only for the analysis. We don't have that many spots where >> we need the original trees to be analyzed yet for it to be worth it though >> IMHO. > > But if we keep adding hacks around it, there will never be progress > and the person(s) who take the challenge of properly fixing this will > not only have to deal with the task itself but also with all the ugly > and obscure hacks added year after year. I'm planning to address this soon, hopefully this stage 1. Jason