* [PATCH] gcc/fold-const.c: Correct the report warning position. [not found] <55E1AC37.2080002@hotmail.com> @ 2015-08-29 13:08 ` Chen Gang 2015-08-31 11:21 ` Richard Biener 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Chen Gang @ 2015-08-29 13:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: law; +Cc: gcc-patches List, Richard Henderson, Iain Buclaw It is about bug63510: current input_location isn't precise for reporting warning. The correct location is gimple location of current statement. ChangeLog: 2015-08-29 Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> * fold-const.c (fold_overflow_warning): Call warning_at instead of call warning. * tree-ssa-sccvn.c (sccvn_dom_walker::before_dom_children): Call fold_binary_loc instead of call fold_binary. --- gcc/fold-const.c | 91 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.c b/gcc/fold-const.c index 1e01726..f22f070 100644 --- a/gcc/fold-const.c +++ b/gcc/fold-const.c @@ -299,7 +299,8 @@ fold_deferring_overflow_warnings_p (void) overflow is undefined. */ static void -fold_overflow_warning (const char* gmsgid, enum warn_strict_overflow_code wc) +fold_overflow_warning (location_t loc, const char* gmsgid, + enum warn_strict_overflow_code wc) { if (fold_deferring_overflow_warnings> 0) { @@ -311,7 +312,8 @@ fold_overflow_warning (const char* gmsgid, enum warn_strict_overflow_code wc) } } else if (issue_strict_overflow_warning (wc)) - warning (OPT_Wstrict_overflow, gmsgid); + warning_at (loc == UNKNOWN_LOCATION ? input_location : loc, + OPT_Wstrict_overflow, gmsgid); } \f /* Return true if the built-in mathematical function specified by CODE @@ -679,7 +681,7 @@ fold_negate_expr (location_t loc, tree t) if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type) && (TREE_CODE (tem) != INTEGER_CST || integer_onep (tem))) - fold_overflow_warning (warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); + fold_overflow_warning (loc, warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); return fold_build2_loc (loc, TREE_CODE (t), type, TREE_OPERAND (t, 0), negate_expr (tem)); } @@ -5143,7 +5145,7 @@ fold_range_test (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree type, in_p, low, high)))) { if (strict_overflow_p) - fold_overflow_warning (warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_COMPARISON); + fold_overflow_warning (loc, warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_COMPARISON); return or_op ? invert_truthvalue_loc (loc, tem) : tem; } @@ -5177,7 +5179,7 @@ fold_range_test (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree type, low1, high1)))) { if (strict_overflow_p) - fold_overflow_warning (warnmsg, + fold_overflow_warning (loc, warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_COMPARISON); return build2_loc (loc, code == TRUTH_ANDIF_EXPR ? TRUTH_AND_EXPR : TRUTH_OR_EXPR, @@ -8177,7 +8179,7 @@ maybe_canonicalize_comparison (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree type, if (t) { if (strict_overflow_p) - fold_overflow_warning (warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MAGNITUDE); + fold_overflow_warning (loc, warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MAGNITUDE); return t; } @@ -8188,7 +8190,7 @@ maybe_canonicalize_comparison (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree type, t = maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1 (loc, code, type, arg1, arg0, &strict_overflow_p); if (t && strict_overflow_p) - fold_overflow_warning (warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MAGNITUDE); + fold_overflow_warning (loc, warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MAGNITUDE); return t; } @@ -8337,9 +8339,10 @@ fold_comparison (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree type, else { if (!equality_code) - fold_overflow_warning ("assuming signed overflow does not occur " - "when changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to " - "X cmp C2 -+ C1", + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming signed overflow does not occur " + "when changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to " + "X cmp C2 -+ C1"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_COMPARISON); return fold_build2_loc (loc, code, type, variable, new_const); } @@ -8452,7 +8455,8 @@ fold_comparison (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree type, && bitpos0 != bitpos1 && (pointer_may_wrap_p (base0, offset0, bitpos0) || pointer_may_wrap_p (base1, offset1, bitpos1))) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming pointer wraparound does not " + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming pointer wraparound does not " "occur when comparing P +- C1 with " "P +- C2"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_CONDITIONAL); @@ -8503,7 +8507,8 @@ fold_comparison (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree type, if (!equality_code && (pointer_may_wrap_p (base0, offset0, bitpos0) || pointer_may_wrap_p (base1, offset1, bitpos1))) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming pointer wraparound does not " + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming pointer wraparound does not " "occur when comparing P +- C1 with " "P +- C2"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_COMPARISON); @@ -8561,7 +8566,7 @@ fold_comparison (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree type, && tree_int_cst_compare (const2, cst) == tree_int_cst_sgn (const2) && tree_int_cst_sgn (cst) == tree_int_cst_sgn (const2)) { - fold_overflow_warning (warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_COMPARISON); + fold_overflow_warning (loc, warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_COMPARISON); return fold_build2_loc (loc, code, type, variable1, fold_build2_loc (loc, TREE_CODE (arg1), @@ -8576,7 +8581,7 @@ fold_comparison (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree type, && tree_int_cst_compare (const1, cst) == tree_int_cst_sgn (const1) && tree_int_cst_sgn (cst) == tree_int_cst_sgn (const1)) { - fold_overflow_warning (warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_COMPARISON); + fold_overflow_warning (loc, warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_COMPARISON); return fold_build2_loc (loc, code, type, fold_build2_loc (loc, TREE_CODE (arg0), TREE_TYPE (arg0), @@ -9019,14 +9024,15 @@ tree_expr_nonzero_warnv_p (tree t, bool *strict_overflow_p) Handle warnings about undefined signed overflow. */ static bool -tree_expr_nonzero_p (tree t) +tree_expr_nonzero_p (location_t loc, tree t) { bool ret, strict_overflow_p; strict_overflow_p = false; ret = tree_expr_nonzero_warnv_p (t, &strict_overflow_p); if (strict_overflow_p) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not occur when " + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming signed overflow does not occur when " "determining that expression is always " "non-zero"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); @@ -9866,7 +9872,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, &strict_overflow_p))) { if (strict_overflow_p) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not " + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming signed overflow does not " "occur when simplifying " "multiplication"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); @@ -10474,7 +10481,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, wi::exact_log2 (sval)); if (strict_overflow_p) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not " + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming signed overflow does not " "occur when simplifying A / (B << N)"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); @@ -10500,7 +10508,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, && negate_expr_p (arg1)) { if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type)) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not occur " + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming signed overflow does not occur " "when distributing negation across " "division"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); @@ -10515,7 +10524,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, && negate_expr_p (arg0)) { if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type)) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not occur " + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming signed overflow does not occur " "when distributing negation across " "division"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); @@ -10544,7 +10554,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, &strict_overflow_p))) { if (strict_overflow_p) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not occur " + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming signed overflow does not occur " "when simplifying division"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); return fold_convert_loc (loc, type, tem); @@ -10562,7 +10573,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, &strict_overflow_p))) { if (strict_overflow_p) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not occur " + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming signed overflow does not occur " "when simplifying modulus"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); return fold_convert_loc (loc, type, tem); @@ -11091,7 +11103,7 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, } if (integer_zerop (arg1) - && tree_expr_nonzero_p (arg0)) + && tree_expr_nonzero_p (loc, arg0)) { tree res = constant_boolean_node (code==NE_EXPR, type); return omit_one_operand_loc (loc, type, res, arg0); @@ -11291,7 +11303,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, { if (TREE_CODE (arg01) == INTEGER_CST && TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (arg1))) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not " + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming signed overflow does not " "occur when assuming that (X - c)> X " "is always false"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_ALL); @@ -11305,7 +11318,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, { if (TREE_CODE (arg01) == INTEGER_CST && TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (arg1))) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not " + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming signed overflow does not " "occur when assuming that " "(X + c) < X is always false"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_ALL); @@ -11320,7 +11334,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, { if (TREE_CODE (arg01) == INTEGER_CST && TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (arg1))) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not " + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming signed overflow does not " "occur when assuming that " "(X - c) <= X is always true"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_ALL); @@ -11335,7 +11350,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, { if (TREE_CODE (arg01) == INTEGER_CST && TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (arg1))) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not " + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming signed overflow does not " "occur when assuming that " "(X + c)>= X is always true"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_ALL); @@ -11350,7 +11366,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, || (code0 == MINUS_EXPR && is_positive < 0))) { if (TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (arg1))) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does " + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming signed overflow does " "not occur when assuming that " "(X + c)> X is always true"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_ALL); @@ -11362,7 +11379,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, || (code0 == PLUS_EXPR && is_positive < 0))) { if (TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (arg1))) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does " + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming signed overflow does " "not occur when assuming that " "(X - c) < X is always true"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_ALL); @@ -11375,7 +11393,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, || (code0 == MINUS_EXPR && is_positive < 0))) { if (TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (arg1))) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does " + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming signed overflow does " "not occur when assuming that " "(X + c) <= X is always false"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_ALL); @@ -11387,7 +11406,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, || (code0 == PLUS_EXPR && is_positive < 0))) { if (TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (arg1))) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does " + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming signed overflow does " "not occur when assuming that " "(X - c)>= X is always false"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_ALL); @@ -11423,7 +11443,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, && tree_expr_nonnegative_warnv_p (arg0, &strict_overflow_p)) { if (strict_overflow_p) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not occur " + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming signed overflow does not occur " "when simplifying comparison of " "absolute value and zero"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_CONDITIONAL); @@ -11439,7 +11460,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, && tree_expr_nonnegative_warnv_p (arg0, &strict_overflow_p)) { if (strict_overflow_p) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not occur " + fold_overflow_warning (loc, + ("assuming signed overflow does not occur " "when simplifying comparison of " "absolute value and zero"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_CONDITIONAL); @@ -13455,7 +13477,8 @@ tree_expr_nonnegative_p (tree t) strict_overflow_p = false; ret = tree_expr_nonnegative_warnv_p (t, &strict_overflow_p); if (strict_overflow_p) - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not occur when " + fold_overflow_warning (input_location, + ("assuming signed overflow does not occur when " "determining that expression is always " "non-negative"), WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c index aea6acc..71e5779 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c @@ -4587,7 +4587,7 @@ sccvn_dom_walker::before_dom_children (basic_block bb) lhs = vn_get_expr_for (lhs); if (TREE_CODE (rhs) == SSA_NAME) rhs = vn_get_expr_for (rhs); - val = fold_binary (gimple_cond_code (stmt), + val = fold_binary_loc (gimple_location (stmt), gimple_cond_code (stmt), boolean_type_node, lhs, rhs); /* If that didn't simplify to a constant see if we have recorded temporary expressions from taken edges. */ -- 1.9.3 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] gcc/fold-const.c: Correct the report warning position. 2015-08-29 13:08 ` [PATCH] gcc/fold-const.c: Correct the report warning position Chen Gang @ 2015-08-31 11:21 ` Richard Biener [not found] ` <55E5AB8A.60408@hotmail.com> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Richard Biener @ 2015-08-31 11:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chen Gang; +Cc: law, gcc-patches List, Richard Henderson, Iain Buclaw On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Chen Gang <xili_gchen_5257@hotmail.com> wrote: > > It is about bug63510: current input_location isn't precise for reporting > warning. The correct location is gimple location of current statement. Looks ok to me. Ok if bootstrapped and tested. Thanks, Richard. > ChangeLog: > > 2015-08-29 Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> > > * fold-const.c (fold_overflow_warning): Call warning_at instead > of call warning. > * tree-ssa-sccvn.c (sccvn_dom_walker::before_dom_children): Call > fold_binary_loc instead of call fold_binary. > --- > gcc/fold-const.c | 91 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- > gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/fold-const.c b/gcc/fold-const.c > index 1e01726..f22f070 100644 > --- a/gcc/fold-const.c > +++ b/gcc/fold-const.c > @@ -299,7 +299,8 @@ fold_deferring_overflow_warnings_p (void) > overflow is undefined. */ > > static void > -fold_overflow_warning (const char* gmsgid, enum warn_strict_overflow_code wc) > +fold_overflow_warning (location_t loc, const char* gmsgid, > + enum warn_strict_overflow_code wc) > { > if (fold_deferring_overflow_warnings> 0) > { > @@ -311,7 +312,8 @@ fold_overflow_warning (const char* gmsgid, enum warn_strict_overflow_code wc) > } > } > else if (issue_strict_overflow_warning (wc)) > - warning (OPT_Wstrict_overflow, gmsgid); > + warning_at (loc == UNKNOWN_LOCATION ? input_location : loc, > + OPT_Wstrict_overflow, gmsgid); > } > > /* Return true if the built-in mathematical function specified by CODE > @@ -679,7 +681,7 @@ fold_negate_expr (location_t loc, tree t) > if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type) > && (TREE_CODE (tem) != INTEGER_CST > || integer_onep (tem))) > - fold_overflow_warning (warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); > return fold_build2_loc (loc, TREE_CODE (t), type, > TREE_OPERAND (t, 0), negate_expr (tem)); > } > @@ -5143,7 +5145,7 @@ fold_range_test (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree type, > in_p, low, high)))) > { > if (strict_overflow_p) > - fold_overflow_warning (warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_COMPARISON); > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_COMPARISON); > return or_op ? invert_truthvalue_loc (loc, tem) : tem; > } > > @@ -5177,7 +5179,7 @@ fold_range_test (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree type, > low1, high1)))) > { > if (strict_overflow_p) > - fold_overflow_warning (warnmsg, > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, warnmsg, > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_COMPARISON); > return build2_loc (loc, code == TRUTH_ANDIF_EXPR > ? TRUTH_AND_EXPR : TRUTH_OR_EXPR, > @@ -8177,7 +8179,7 @@ maybe_canonicalize_comparison (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree type, > if (t) > { > if (strict_overflow_p) > - fold_overflow_warning (warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MAGNITUDE); > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MAGNITUDE); > return t; > } > > @@ -8188,7 +8190,7 @@ maybe_canonicalize_comparison (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree type, > t = maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1 (loc, code, type, arg1, arg0, > &strict_overflow_p); > if (t && strict_overflow_p) > - fold_overflow_warning (warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MAGNITUDE); > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MAGNITUDE); > return t; > } > > @@ -8337,9 +8339,10 @@ fold_comparison (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree type, > else > { > if (!equality_code) > - fold_overflow_warning ("assuming signed overflow does not occur " > - "when changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to " > - "X cmp C2 -+ C1", > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming signed overflow does not occur " > + "when changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to " > + "X cmp C2 -+ C1"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_COMPARISON); > return fold_build2_loc (loc, code, type, variable, new_const); > } > @@ -8452,7 +8455,8 @@ fold_comparison (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree type, > && bitpos0 != bitpos1 > && (pointer_may_wrap_p (base0, offset0, bitpos0) > || pointer_may_wrap_p (base1, offset1, bitpos1))) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming pointer wraparound does not " > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming pointer wraparound does not " > "occur when comparing P +- C1 with " > "P +- C2"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_CONDITIONAL); > @@ -8503,7 +8507,8 @@ fold_comparison (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree type, > if (!equality_code > && (pointer_may_wrap_p (base0, offset0, bitpos0) > || pointer_may_wrap_p (base1, offset1, bitpos1))) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming pointer wraparound does not " > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming pointer wraparound does not " > "occur when comparing P +- C1 with " > "P +- C2"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_COMPARISON); > @@ -8561,7 +8566,7 @@ fold_comparison (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree type, > && tree_int_cst_compare (const2, cst) == tree_int_cst_sgn (const2) > && tree_int_cst_sgn (cst) == tree_int_cst_sgn (const2)) > { > - fold_overflow_warning (warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_COMPARISON); > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_COMPARISON); > return fold_build2_loc (loc, code, type, > variable1, > fold_build2_loc (loc, TREE_CODE (arg1), > @@ -8576,7 +8581,7 @@ fold_comparison (location_t loc, enum tree_code code, tree type, > && tree_int_cst_compare (const1, cst) == tree_int_cst_sgn (const1) > && tree_int_cst_sgn (cst) == tree_int_cst_sgn (const1)) > { > - fold_overflow_warning (warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_COMPARISON); > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, warnmsg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_COMPARISON); > return fold_build2_loc (loc, code, type, > fold_build2_loc (loc, TREE_CODE (arg0), > TREE_TYPE (arg0), > @@ -9019,14 +9024,15 @@ tree_expr_nonzero_warnv_p (tree t, bool *strict_overflow_p) > Handle warnings about undefined signed overflow. */ > > static bool > -tree_expr_nonzero_p (tree t) > +tree_expr_nonzero_p (location_t loc, tree t) > { > bool ret, strict_overflow_p; > > strict_overflow_p = false; > ret = tree_expr_nonzero_warnv_p (t, &strict_overflow_p); > if (strict_overflow_p) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not occur when " > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming signed overflow does not occur when " > "determining that expression is always " > "non-zero"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); > @@ -9866,7 +9872,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, > &strict_overflow_p))) > { > if (strict_overflow_p) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not " > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming signed overflow does not " > "occur when simplifying " > "multiplication"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); > @@ -10474,7 +10481,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, > wi::exact_log2 (sval)); > > if (strict_overflow_p) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not " > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming signed overflow does not " > "occur when simplifying A / (B << N)"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); > > @@ -10500,7 +10508,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, > && negate_expr_p (arg1)) > { > if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type)) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not occur " > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming signed overflow does not occur " > "when distributing negation across " > "division"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); > @@ -10515,7 +10524,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, > && negate_expr_p (arg0)) > { > if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (type)) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not occur " > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming signed overflow does not occur " > "when distributing negation across " > "division"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); > @@ -10544,7 +10554,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, > &strict_overflow_p))) > { > if (strict_overflow_p) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not occur " > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming signed overflow does not occur " > "when simplifying division"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); > return fold_convert_loc (loc, type, tem); > @@ -10562,7 +10573,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, > &strict_overflow_p))) > { > if (strict_overflow_p) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not occur " > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming signed overflow does not occur " > "when simplifying modulus"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); > return fold_convert_loc (loc, type, tem); > @@ -11091,7 +11103,7 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, > } > > if (integer_zerop (arg1) > - && tree_expr_nonzero_p (arg0)) > + && tree_expr_nonzero_p (loc, arg0)) > { > tree res = constant_boolean_node (code==NE_EXPR, type); > return omit_one_operand_loc (loc, type, res, arg0); > @@ -11291,7 +11303,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, > { > if (TREE_CODE (arg01) == INTEGER_CST > && TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (arg1))) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not " > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming signed overflow does not " > "occur when assuming that (X - c)> X " > "is always false"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_ALL); > @@ -11305,7 +11318,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, > { > if (TREE_CODE (arg01) == INTEGER_CST > && TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (arg1))) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not " > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming signed overflow does not " > "occur when assuming that " > "(X + c) < X is always false"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_ALL); > @@ -11320,7 +11334,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, > { > if (TREE_CODE (arg01) == INTEGER_CST > && TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (arg1))) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not " > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming signed overflow does not " > "occur when assuming that " > "(X - c) <= X is always true"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_ALL); > @@ -11335,7 +11350,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, > { > if (TREE_CODE (arg01) == INTEGER_CST > && TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (arg1))) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not " > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming signed overflow does not " > "occur when assuming that " > "(X + c)>= X is always true"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_ALL); > @@ -11350,7 +11366,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, > || (code0 == MINUS_EXPR && is_positive < 0))) > { > if (TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (arg1))) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does " > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming signed overflow does " > "not occur when assuming that " > "(X + c)> X is always true"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_ALL); > @@ -11362,7 +11379,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, > || (code0 == PLUS_EXPR && is_positive < 0))) > { > if (TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (arg1))) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does " > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming signed overflow does " > "not occur when assuming that " > "(X - c) < X is always true"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_ALL); > @@ -11375,7 +11393,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, > || (code0 == MINUS_EXPR && is_positive < 0))) > { > if (TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (arg1))) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does " > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming signed overflow does " > "not occur when assuming that " > "(X + c) <= X is always false"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_ALL); > @@ -11387,7 +11406,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, > || (code0 == PLUS_EXPR && is_positive < 0))) > { > if (TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (arg1))) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does " > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming signed overflow does " > "not occur when assuming that " > "(X - c)>= X is always false"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_ALL); > @@ -11423,7 +11443,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, > && tree_expr_nonnegative_warnv_p (arg0, &strict_overflow_p)) > { > if (strict_overflow_p) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not occur " > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming signed overflow does not occur " > "when simplifying comparison of " > "absolute value and zero"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_CONDITIONAL); > @@ -11439,7 +11460,8 @@ fold_binary_loc (location_t loc, > && tree_expr_nonnegative_warnv_p (arg0, &strict_overflow_p)) > { > if (strict_overflow_p) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not occur " > + fold_overflow_warning (loc, > + ("assuming signed overflow does not occur " > "when simplifying comparison of " > "absolute value and zero"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_CONDITIONAL); > @@ -13455,7 +13477,8 @@ tree_expr_nonnegative_p (tree t) > strict_overflow_p = false; > ret = tree_expr_nonnegative_warnv_p (t, &strict_overflow_p); > if (strict_overflow_p) > - fold_overflow_warning (("assuming signed overflow does not occur when " > + fold_overflow_warning (input_location, > + ("assuming signed overflow does not occur when " > "determining that expression is always " > "non-negative"), > WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC); > diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c > index aea6acc..71e5779 100644 > --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c > +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c > @@ -4587,7 +4587,7 @@ sccvn_dom_walker::before_dom_children (basic_block bb) > lhs = vn_get_expr_for (lhs); > if (TREE_CODE (rhs) == SSA_NAME) > rhs = vn_get_expr_for (rhs); > - val = fold_binary (gimple_cond_code (stmt), > + val = fold_binary_loc (gimple_location (stmt), gimple_cond_code (stmt), > boolean_type_node, lhs, rhs); > /* If that didn't simplify to a constant see if we have recorded > temporary expressions from taken edges. */ > -- > 1.9.3 > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <55E5AB8A.60408@hotmail.com>]
* Re: [PATCH] gcc/fold-const.c: Correct the report warning position. [not found] ` <55E5AB8A.60408@hotmail.com> @ 2015-09-01 13:42 ` Chen Gang 2015-10-12 22:34 ` Chen Gang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Chen Gang @ 2015-09-01 13:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Biener; +Cc: law, gcc-patches List, Richard Henderson, Iain Buclaw On 8/31/15 19:12, Richard Biener wrote: > On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Chen Gang <xili_gchen_5257@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> It is about bug63510: current input_location isn't precise for reporting >> warning. The correct location is gimple location of current statement. > > Looks ok to me. Ok if bootstrapped and tested. > It passes "make check". :-) Thanks. -- Chen Gang Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] gcc/fold-const.c: Correct the report warning position. 2015-09-01 13:42 ` Chen Gang @ 2015-10-12 22:34 ` Chen Gang 2015-10-22 2:09 ` Chen Gang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Chen Gang @ 2015-10-12 22:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Biener; +Cc: law, gcc-patches List, Richard Henderson, Iain Buclaw Hello all: Is this patch OK? If it still needs to do anything, please let me know, I shall try. Thanks. On 9/1/15 21:42, Chen Gang wrote: > On 8/31/15 19:12, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Chen Gang <xili_gchen_5257@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> It is about bug63510: current input_location isn't precise for reporting >>> warning. The correct location is gimple location of current statement. >> >> Looks ok to me. Ok if bootstrapped and tested. >> > > It passes "make check". :-) > > Thanks. > -- > Chen Gang > > Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed > > -- Chen Gang (陈刚) Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] gcc/fold-const.c: Correct the report warning position. 2015-10-12 22:34 ` Chen Gang @ 2015-10-22 2:09 ` Chen Gang 2015-10-22 19:59 ` Jeff Law 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Chen Gang @ 2015-10-22 2:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Biener Cc: law, gcc-patches List, Richard Henderson, Iain Buclaw, Mike Stump Hello all: It is for bug63510, which reported by another members (not me), I guess, this patch should fix this bug. Welcome any other members' ideas, suggestions, and completions. Thanks. On 10/13/15 06:36, Chen Gang wrote: > Hello all: > > Is this patch OK? If it still needs to do anything, please let me know, > I shall try. > > Thanks. > > On 9/1/15 21:42, Chen Gang wrote: >> On 8/31/15 19:12, Richard Biener wrote: >>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Chen Gang <xili_gchen_5257@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> It is about bug63510: current input_location isn't precise for reporting >>>> warning. The correct location is gimple location of current statement. >>> >>> Looks ok to me. Ok if bootstrapped and tested. >>> >> >> It passes "make check". :-) >> Thanks. -- Chen Gang (陈刚) Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] gcc/fold-const.c: Correct the report warning position. 2015-10-22 2:09 ` Chen Gang @ 2015-10-22 19:59 ` Jeff Law 2015-10-23 9:06 ` Richard Biener 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Jeff Law @ 2015-10-22 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chen Gang, Richard Biener Cc: gcc-patches List, Richard Henderson, Iain Buclaw, Mike Stump On 10/21/2015 04:31 PM, Chen Gang wrote: > Hello all: > > It is for bug63510, which reported by another members (not me), I guess, > this patch should fix this bug. > > Welcome any other members' ideas, suggestions, and completions. Note that the call to fold_binary from tree-ssa-sccvn.c has been removed. So that hunk either needs to be removed or the change applied elsewhere. I think passing around the location through fold-const.c is OK. I'd like to see a testcase in a form ready for inclusion into the testsuite. jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] gcc/fold-const.c: Correct the report warning position. 2015-10-22 19:59 ` Jeff Law @ 2015-10-23 9:06 ` Richard Biener 2015-10-24 2:32 ` Chen Gang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Richard Biener @ 2015-10-23 9:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Law Cc: Chen Gang, gcc-patches List, Richard Henderson, Iain Buclaw, Mike Stump On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote: > On 10/21/2015 04:31 PM, Chen Gang wrote: >> >> Hello all: >> >> It is for bug63510, which reported by another members (not me), I guess, >> this patch should fix this bug. >> >> Welcome any other members' ideas, suggestions, and completions. > > Note that the call to fold_binary from tree-ssa-sccvn.c has been removed. > So that hunk either needs to be removed or the change applied elsewhere. > > I think passing around the location through fold-const.c is OK. > > I'd like to see a testcase in a form ready for inclusion into the testsuite. As an additional remark - I'd like to see us not use input_location but always loc, even if UNKNOWN_LOCATION. The diagnostic machinery should handle this correctly(?). That is, if bootstrap/testign doesn't show testsuite regressions because of this. Richard. > jeff > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] gcc/fold-const.c: Correct the report warning position. 2015-10-23 9:06 ` Richard Biener @ 2015-10-24 2:32 ` Chen Gang 2015-10-24 17:31 ` Chen Gang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Chen Gang @ 2015-10-24 2:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Biener, Jeff Law Cc: gcc-patches List, Richard Henderson, Iain Buclaw, Mike Stump On 10/23/15 16:56, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> Note that the call to fold_binary from tree-ssa-sccvn.c has been removed. >> So that hunk either needs to be removed or the change applied elsewhere. >> Oh, really, it uses gimple_simplify instead of. >> I think passing around the location through fold-const.c is OK. >> OK, thanks. >> I'd like to see a testcase in a form ready for inclusion into the testsuite. OK, thanks, I shall try. > > As an additional remark - I'd like to see us not use input_location > but always loc, For me, it sounds reasonable. > even if UNKNOWN_LOCATION. The diagnostic machinery should handle this > correctly(?). That is, if bootstrap/testign doesn't show testsuite > regressions because > of this. > I will try. Hope I can finish trying above all within 2 days (2015-10-25). Thanks. -- Chen Gang (陈刚) Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] gcc/fold-const.c: Correct the report warning position. 2015-10-24 2:32 ` Chen Gang @ 2015-10-24 17:31 ` Chen Gang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Chen Gang @ 2015-10-24 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Biener, Jeff Law Cc: gcc-patches List, Richard Henderson, Iain Buclaw, Mike Stump Hello all: After have a test, "gcc version 6.0.0 20151023 (experimental) (GCC)" has no this issue. And bug63510 can be closed. :-) So for me, we need not spend additional time resources on it. I shall continue to other issues in gcc or qemu. Now, I guess, my 1st priority is to rewrite tilegx qemu floating point insns within 2015-10-31. Welcome additional ideas, suggestions, and completions. Thanks. On 10/24/15 08:15, Chen Gang wrote: > > On 10/23/15 16:56, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> Note that the call to fold_binary from tree-ssa-sccvn.c has been removed. >>> So that hunk either needs to be removed or the change applied elsewhere. >>> > > Oh, really, it uses gimple_simplify instead of. > >>> I think passing around the location through fold-const.c is OK. >>> > > OK, thanks. > >>> I'd like to see a testcase in a form ready for inclusion into the testsuite. > > OK, thanks, I shall try. > >> >> As an additional remark - I'd like to see us not use input_location >> but always loc, > > For me, it sounds reasonable. > >> even if UNKNOWN_LOCATION. The diagnostic machinery should handle this >> correctly(?). That is, if bootstrap/testign doesn't show testsuite >> regressions because >> of this. >> > > I will try. > > > Hope I can finish trying above all within 2 days (2015-10-25). > > > Thanks. > -- Chen Gang (陈刚) Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-10-24 16:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <55E1AC37.2080002@hotmail.com>
2015-08-29 13:08 ` [PATCH] gcc/fold-const.c: Correct the report warning position Chen Gang
2015-08-31 11:21 ` Richard Biener
[not found] ` <55E5AB8A.60408@hotmail.com>
2015-09-01 13:42 ` Chen Gang
2015-10-12 22:34 ` Chen Gang
2015-10-22 2:09 ` Chen Gang
2015-10-22 19:59 ` Jeff Law
2015-10-23 9:06 ` Richard Biener
2015-10-24 2:32 ` Chen Gang
2015-10-24 17:31 ` Chen Gang
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).