* [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
* 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).