* [PATCH][C] c/95141 - fix bogus integer overflow warning
@ 2020-05-19 6:03 Richard Biener
2020-05-19 19:02 ` Joseph Myers
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Richard Biener @ 2020-05-19 6:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches
This fixes an integer overflow warning that ultimatively happens because
of TREE_OVERFLOW propagating through transforms and the existing guard
against this,
375 if (TREE_OVERFLOW_P (ret)
376 && !TREE_OVERFLOW_P (op0)
377 && !TREE_OVERFLOW_P (op1))
378 overflow_warning (EXPR_LOC_OR_LOC (expr, input_location,
being insufficient. Rather than trying to use sth like walk_tree to
exhaustively walk operands (with the possibility of introducing
quadraticness when folding larger expressions recursively) the
following amends the above with an ad-hoc test for a binary op0
with a possibly constant op1.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, OK?
Thanks,
Richard.
2020-05-19 Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
PR c/95141
c/
* c-fold.c (c_fully_fold_internal): Enhance guard on
overflow_warning.
* gcc.dg/pr95141.c: New testcase.
---
gcc/c/c-fold.c | 1 +
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr95141.c | 8 ++++++++
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr95141.c
diff --git a/gcc/c/c-fold.c b/gcc/c/c-fold.c
index 63becfeaf2c..bd21d247051 100644
--- a/gcc/c/c-fold.c
+++ b/gcc/c/c-fold.c
@@ -374,6 +374,7 @@ c_fully_fold_internal (tree expr, bool in_init, bool *maybe_const_operands,
ret = fold (expr);
if (TREE_OVERFLOW_P (ret)
&& !TREE_OVERFLOW_P (op0)
+ && !(BINARY_CLASS_P (op0) && TREE_OVERFLOW_P (TREE_OPERAND (op0, 1)))
&& !TREE_OVERFLOW_P (op1))
overflow_warning (EXPR_LOC_OR_LOC (expr, input_location), ret, expr);
if (code == LSHIFT_EXPR
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr95141.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr95141.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..b6cbba2f908
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr95141.c
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+
+#include <stdint.h>
+
+uint64_t test(uint8_t IA1)
+{
+ return (uint8_t)(IA1 & 158) & 1UL; /* { dg-bogus "integer overflow" } */
+}
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH][C] c/95141 - fix bogus integer overflow warning
2020-05-19 6:03 [PATCH][C] c/95141 - fix bogus integer overflow warning Richard Biener
@ 2020-05-19 19:02 ` Joseph Myers
2020-05-20 7:31 ` Richard Biener
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Joseph Myers @ 2020-05-19 19:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Biener; +Cc: gcc-patches
On Tue, 19 May 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
> This fixes an integer overflow warning that ultimatively happens because
> of TREE_OVERFLOW propagating through transforms and the existing guard
> against this,
>
> 375 if (TREE_OVERFLOW_P (ret)
> 376 && !TREE_OVERFLOW_P (op0)
> 377 && !TREE_OVERFLOW_P (op1))
> 378 overflow_warning (EXPR_LOC_OR_LOC (expr, input_location,
>
> being insufficient. Rather than trying to use sth like walk_tree to
> exhaustively walk operands (with the possibility of introducing
> quadraticness when folding larger expressions recursively) the
> following amends the above with an ad-hoc test for a binary op0
> with a possibly constant op1.
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, OK?
OK.
The test in bug 32643 looks vaguely similar, but that's an older
regression, do I take it this patch doesn't help with that one?
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH][C] c/95141 - fix bogus integer overflow warning
2020-05-19 19:02 ` Joseph Myers
@ 2020-05-20 7:31 ` Richard Biener
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Richard Biener @ 2020-05-20 7:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joseph Myers; +Cc: gcc-patches
On Tue, 19 May 2020, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2020, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > This fixes an integer overflow warning that ultimatively happens because
> > of TREE_OVERFLOW propagating through transforms and the existing guard
> > against this,
> >
> > 375 if (TREE_OVERFLOW_P (ret)
> > 376 && !TREE_OVERFLOW_P (op0)
> > 377 && !TREE_OVERFLOW_P (op1))
> > 378 overflow_warning (EXPR_LOC_OR_LOC (expr, input_location,
> >
> > being insufficient. Rather than trying to use sth like walk_tree to
> > exhaustively walk operands (with the possibility of introducing
> > quadraticness when folding larger expressions recursively) the
> > following amends the above with an ad-hoc test for a binary op0
> > with a possibly constant op1.
> >
> > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, OK?
>
> OK.
>
> The test in bug 32643 looks vaguely similar, but that's an older
> regression, do I take it this patch doesn't help with that one?
Yes, it doesn't help with that older bug. That is, it does not
change in any way where we set TREE_OVERFLOW, it just avoids
emitting an overflow warning in the above spot when overflow
was already present on original operands and thus likely(!)
propagated to the result.
Pushed.
Richard.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-05-20 7:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-05-19 6:03 [PATCH][C] c/95141 - fix bogus integer overflow warning Richard Biener
2020-05-19 19:02 ` Joseph Myers
2020-05-20 7:31 ` Richard Biener
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).