* [PATCH] PR c++/28986 failure to diagnose overflow for binary operators
@ 2007-01-06 17:49 Manuel López-Ibáñez
2007-01-06 18:11 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Manuel López-Ibáñez @ 2007-01-06 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1837 bytes --]
:ADDPATCH c++:
Somehow the C++ front-end is not able to diagnose overflow for the
result of binary operators. The fix is trivial (I can hardly believe
that this is not a regression). In addition, I have adapted the
overflow testcases from the C front-end to the C++ testsuite with some
minor modifications. For reference, I also provide a diff showing
those modifications.
One particular issue that I am not sure about is whether initialisers
for static variables need to be constant in C++ as they do in C. The
relevant hunk in the diff between C and C++ testcases is:
-/* But this expression does need to be constant. */
+/* But this expression does need to be constant (in C++ ???). */
static int sc = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer
overflow in expression" } */
-/* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in constant expression" "constant"
{ target *-*-* } 47 } */
+/* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in constant expression" "constant"
{ xfail *-*-* } 47 } */
Bootstrapped and tested with --enable-languages=all on
i686-pc-linux-gnu for revision 120511.
cp/
2007-01-06 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <manu@gcc.gnu.org>
PR c++/28986
* typeck.c (build_binary_op): Call overflow_warning if
TREE_OVERFLOW_P is true for the result and not for any of the
operands.
testsuite/
2007-01-06 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <manu@gcc.gnu.org>
PR c++/28986
* g++.dg/conversion/nullptr1.C: Added overflow warning.
* g++.dg/warn/multiple-overflow-warn-2.C: New.
* g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-1.C: New.
* g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-2.C: New.
* g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-3.C: New.
* g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-4.C: New.
* g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-5.C: New.
* g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-6.C: New.
* g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-1.C: New.
* g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-2.C: New.
* g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-3.C: New.
[-- Attachment #2: c-c++-overflow-testsuite.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 14180 bytes --]
--- trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/multiple-overflow-warn-1.c 2007-01-06 00:20:24.000000000 +0100
+++ trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/multiple-overflow-warn-1.C 2007-01-06 00:25:06.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
/* PR c/19978 : Test for duplicated warnings (unary operators). */
/* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-options "-std=c99 -Woverflow" } */
+/* { dg-options "-Woverflow" } */
#include <limits.h>
--- trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/multiple-overflow-warn-2.c 2007-01-06 00:21:02.000000000 +0100
+++ trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/multiple-overflow-warn-2.C 2007-01-06 09:40:55.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
/* PR c/19978 : Test for duplicated warnings (binary operators). */
/* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-options "-std=c99 -Woverflow" } */
+/* { dg-options "-Woverflow" } */
#include <limits.h>
--- trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/overflow-warn-1.c 2006-12-02 03:16:46.000000000 +0100
+++ trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-1.C 2007-01-06 09:40:55.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
/* Test for diagnostics for constant overflow. */
/* Origin: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> */
/* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-options "-std=c99" } */
+/* { dg-options "" } */
#include <limits.h>
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ enum e {
E1 = UINT_MAX + 1,
/* Overflow in an unevaluated part of an expression is OK (example
in the standard). */
- E2 = 2 || 1 / 0,
+ E2 = 2 || 1 / 0, /* { dg-bogus "warning: division by zero" "" { xfail *-*-* } 14 } */
E3 = 1 / 0, /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
/* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E3' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { target *-*-* } 15 } */
/* But as in DR#031, the 1/0 in an evaluated subexpression means the
@@ -46,10 +46,10 @@ static int sc = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-war
constants. The third has the overflow in an unevaluated
subexpression, so is a null pointer constant. */
void *p = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-/* { dg-warning "warning: initialization makes pointer from integer without a cast" "null" { target *-*-* } 48 } */
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void" "null" { target *-*-* } 48 } */
void *q = 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
-/* { dg-warning "warning: initialization makes pointer from integer without a cast" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 50 } */
-void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1);
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void*'" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 50 } */
+void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1); /* { dg-bogus "integer overflow in expression" "" { xfail *-*-* } 52 } */
void
g (int i)
--- trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/overflow-warn-2.c 2006-12-02 03:17:12.000000000 +0100
+++ trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-2.C 1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,132 +0,0 @@
-/* Test for diagnostics for constant overflow. Test with -Wtraditional-conversion. */
-/* Origin: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> */
-/* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-options "-std=c99 -Wtraditional-conversion" } */
-
-#include <limits.h>
-
-enum e {
- E0 = INT_MAX,
- /* Unsigned overflow wraps around. */
- E1 = UINT_MAX + 1,
- /* Overflow in an unevaluated part of an expression is OK (example
- in the standard). */
- E2 = 2 || 1 / 0,
- E3 = 1 / 0, /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
- /* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E3' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { target *-*-* } 15 } */
- /* But as in DR#031, the 1/0 in an evaluated subexpression means the
- whole expression violates the constraints. */
- E4 = 0 * (1 / 0), /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
- /* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E4' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { xfail *-*-* } 19 } */
- E5 = INT_MAX + 1, /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
- /* Again, overflow in evaluated subexpression. */
- E6 = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1), /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
- /* A cast does not constitute overflow in conversion. */
- E7 = (char) INT_MAX
-};
-
-struct s {
- int a;
- int : 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
- int : 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-};
-
-void
-f (void)
-{
- /* This expression is not required to be a constant expression, so
- it should just involve undefined behavior at runtime. */
- int c = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-}
-
-/* But this expression does need to be constant. */
-static int sc = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-
-/* The first two of these involve overflow, so are not null pointer
- constants. The third has the overflow in an unevaluated
- subexpression, so is a null pointer constant. */
-void *p = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-/* { dg-warning "warning: initialization makes pointer from integer without a cast" "null" { target *-*-* } 48 } */
-void *q = 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
-/* { dg-warning "warning: initialization makes pointer from integer without a cast" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 50 } */
-void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1);
-
-void
-g (int i)
-{
- switch (i)
- {
- case 0 * (1/0): /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
- ;
- case 1 + 0 * (INT_MAX + 1): /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
- ;
- }
-}
-
-int
-h (void)
-{
- return INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-}
-
-int
-h1 (void)
-{
- return INT_MAX + 1 - INT_MAX; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-}
-
-void fuc (unsigned char);
-void fsc (signed char);
-
-void
-h2 (void)
-{
- fsc (SCHAR_MAX + 1);
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fsc' with different width due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 84 } */
- fsc (SCHAR_MIN - 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fsc' with different width due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 86 } */
- fsc (UCHAR_MAX);
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fsc' with different width due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 88 } */
- fsc (UCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fsc' with different width due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 90 } */
- fuc (-1);
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fuc' with different width due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 92 } */
- fuc (UCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fuc' with different width due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 94 } */
- fuc (SCHAR_MIN);
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fuc' with different width due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 96 } */
- fuc (SCHAR_MIN - 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fuc' with different width due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 98 } */
- fuc (-UCHAR_MAX); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fuc' with different width due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 100 } */
-}
-
-void fui (unsigned int);
-void fsi (signed int);
-
-int si;
-unsigned ui;
-
-void
-h2i (int x)
-{
- /* For some reason, we only give certain warnings for implicit
- conversions among values of the same precision with -Wtraditional-conversion,
- while we don't give others at all. */
- fsi ((unsigned)INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fsi' as signed due to prototype" } */
- si = (unsigned)INT_MAX + 1;
- si = x ? (unsigned)INT_MAX + 1 : 1;
- fsi ((unsigned)INT_MAX + 2); /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fsi' as signed due to prototype" } */
- si = (unsigned)INT_MAX + 2;
- si = x ? (unsigned)INT_MAX + 2 : 1;
- fsi (UINT_MAX); /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fsi' as signed due to prototype" } */
- si = UINT_MAX;
- fui (-1);
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fui' as unsigned due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 124 } */
- ui = -1;
- ui = x ? -1 : 1U;
- fui (INT_MIN);
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fui' as unsigned due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 128 } */
- ui = INT_MIN;
- ui = x ? INT_MIN : 1U;
-}
--- trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/overflow-warn-3.c 2007-01-06 00:20:24.000000000 +0100
+++ trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-3.C 2007-01-06 09:40:55.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
/* Test for diagnostics for constant overflow. Test with -pedantic. */
/* Origin: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> */
/* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-options "-std=c99 -pedantic" } */
+/* { dg-options "-fpermissive -pedantic" } */
#include <limits.h>
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ enum e {
E1 = UINT_MAX + 1,
/* Overflow in an unevaluated part of an expression is OK (example
in the standard). */
- E2 = 2 || 1 / 0,
+ E2 = 2 || 1 / 0, /* { dg-bogus "warning: division by zero" "" { xfail *-*-* } 14 } */
E3 = 1 / 0, /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
/* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E3' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { target *-*-* } 15 } */
/* But as in DR#031, the 1/0 in an evaluated subexpression means the
@@ -43,19 +43,19 @@ f (void)
}
-/* But this expression does need to be constant. */
+/* But this expression does need to be constant (in C++ ???). */
static int sc = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-/* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 47 } */
+/* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { xfail *-*-* } 47 } */
/* The first two of these involve overflow, so are not null pointer
constants. The third has the overflow in an unevaluated
subexpression, so is a null pointer constant. */
void *p = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-/* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 53 } */
-/* { dg-warning "warning: initialization makes pointer from integer without a cast" "null" { target *-*-* } 53 } */
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void" "null" { target *-*-* } 53 } */
+
void *q = 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
-/* { dg-warning "warning: initialization makes pointer from integer without a cast" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 56 } */
-void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1);
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void*'" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 56 } */
+void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1); /* { dg-bogus "integer overflow in expression" "" { xfail *-*-* } 58 } */
void
g (int i)
--- trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/overflow-warn-4.c 2007-01-06 00:20:24.000000000 +0100
+++ trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-4.C 2007-01-06 09:40:55.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
/* Test for diagnostics for constant overflow. Test with -pedantic-errors. */
/* Origin: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> */
/* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-options "-std=c99 -pedantic-errors" } */
+/* { dg-options "-pedantic-errors" } */
#include <limits.h>
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ enum e {
E1 = UINT_MAX + 1,
/* Overflow in an unevaluated part of an expression is OK (example
in the standard). */
- E2 = 2 || 1 / 0,
+ E2 = 2 || 1 / 0, /* { dg-bogus "warning: division by zero" "" { xfail *-*-* } 14 } */
E3 = 1 / 0, /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
/* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E3' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { target *-*-* } 15 } */
/* But as in DR#031, the 1/0 in an evaluated subexpression means the
@@ -43,19 +43,19 @@ f (void)
}
-/* But this expression does need to be constant. */
+/* But this expression does need to be constant (in C++ ???). */
static int sc = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-/* { dg-error "error: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 47 } */
+/* { dg-error "error: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { xfail *-*-* } 47 } */
/* The first two of these involve overflow, so are not null pointer
constants. The third has the overflow in an unevaluated
subexpression, so is a null pointer constant. */
void *p = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-/* { dg-error "error: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 53 } */
-/* { dg-error "error: initialization makes pointer from integer without a cast" "null" { target *-*-* } 53 } */
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void" "null" { target *-*-* } 53 } */
+
void *q = 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
-/* { dg-error "error: initialization makes pointer from integer without a cast" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 56 } */
-void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1);
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void*'" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 56 } */
+void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1); /* { dg-bogus "integer overflow in expression" "" { xfail *-*-* } 58 } */
void
g (int i)
--- trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/overflow-warn-6.c 2007-01-06 00:22:02.000000000 +0100
+++ trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-6.C 2007-01-06 09:40:55.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
/* Test non-constant operands in overflowed expressions. */
/* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-options "-std=c99 -Woverflow" } */
+/* { dg-options "-Woverflow" } */
#include <limits.h>
[-- Attachment #3: c++-overflow-warning.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 18792 bytes --]
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/conversion/nullptr1.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/conversion/nullptr1.C (revision 120511)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/conversion/nullptr1.C (working copy)
@@ -6,5 +6,5 @@
void *p = 0;
void *q = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); // { dg-error "invalid conversion" }
-
+// { dg-warning "integer overflow in expression" "" { target *-*-* } 8 }
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-3.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-3.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-3.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+/* Test for diagnostics for constant overflow. Test with -pedantic. */
+/* Origin: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-fpermissive -pedantic" } */
+
+#include <limits.h>
+
+enum e {
+ E0 = INT_MAX,
+ /* Unsigned overflow wraps around. */
+ E1 = UINT_MAX + 1,
+ /* Overflow in an unevaluated part of an expression is OK (example
+ in the standard). */
+ E2 = 2 || 1 / 0, /* { dg-bogus "warning: division by zero" "" { xfail *-*-* } 14 } */
+ E3 = 1 / 0, /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E3' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { target *-*-* } 15 } */
+ /* But as in DR#031, the 1/0 in an evaluated subexpression means the
+ whole expression violates the constraints. */
+ E4 = 0 * (1 / 0), /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E4' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { xfail *-*-* } 19 } */
+ E5 = INT_MAX + 1, /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 21 } */
+ /* Again, overflow in evaluated subexpression. */
+ E6 = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1), /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 24 } */
+ /* A cast does not constitute overflow in conversion. */
+ E7 = (char) INT_MAX
+};
+
+struct s {
+ int a;
+ int : 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ int : 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 33 } */
+};
+
+void
+f (void)
+{
+ /* This expression is not required to be a constant expression, so
+ it should just involve undefined behavior at runtime. */
+ int c = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+
+}
+
+/* But this expression does need to be constant (in C++ ???). */
+static int sc = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+/* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { xfail *-*-* } 47 } */
+
+/* The first two of these involve overflow, so are not null pointer
+ constants. The third has the overflow in an unevaluated
+ subexpression, so is a null pointer constant. */
+void *p = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void" "null" { target *-*-* } 53 } */
+
+void *q = 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void*'" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 56 } */
+void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1); /* { dg-bogus "integer overflow in expression" "" { xfail *-*-* } 58 } */
+
+void
+g (int i)
+{
+ switch (i)
+ {
+ case 0 * (1/0): /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ ;
+ case 1 + 0 * (INT_MAX + 1): /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 67 } */
+ ;
+ }
+}
+
+int
+h (void)
+{
+ return INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+}
+
+int
+h1 (void)
+{
+ return INT_MAX + 1 - INT_MAX; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+}
+
+void fuc (unsigned char);
+void fsc (signed char);
+
+void
+h2 (void)
+{
+ fsc (SCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fsc (SCHAR_MIN - 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fsc (UCHAR_MAX); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fsc (UCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fuc (-1);
+ fuc (UCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
+ fuc (SCHAR_MIN);
+ fuc (SCHAR_MIN - 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
+ fuc (-UCHAR_MAX); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
+}
+
+void fui (unsigned int);
+void fsi (signed int);
+
+int si;
+unsigned ui;
+
+void
+h2i (int x)
+{
+ /* For some reason, we only give certain warnings for implicit
+ conversions among values of the same precision with -Wconversion,
+ while we don't give others at all. */
+ fsi ((unsigned)INT_MAX + 1);
+ si = (unsigned)INT_MAX + 1;
+ si = x ? (unsigned)INT_MAX + 1 : 1;
+ fsi ((unsigned)INT_MAX + 2);
+ si = (unsigned)INT_MAX + 2;
+ si = x ? (unsigned)INT_MAX + 2 : 1;
+ fsi (UINT_MAX);
+ si = UINT_MAX;
+ fui (-1);
+ ui = -1;
+ ui = x ? -1 : 1U;
+ fui (INT_MIN);
+ ui = INT_MIN;
+ ui = x ? INT_MIN : 1U;
+}
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-2.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-2.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-2.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -Woverflow" } */
+
+#include <limits.h>
+
+int foo = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "integer overflow" } */
+
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-4.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-4.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-4.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+/* Test for diagnostics for constant overflow. Test with -pedantic-errors. */
+/* Origin: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-pedantic-errors" } */
+
+#include <limits.h>
+
+enum e {
+ E0 = INT_MAX,
+ /* Unsigned overflow wraps around. */
+ E1 = UINT_MAX + 1,
+ /* Overflow in an unevaluated part of an expression is OK (example
+ in the standard). */
+ E2 = 2 || 1 / 0, /* { dg-bogus "warning: division by zero" "" { xfail *-*-* } 14 } */
+ E3 = 1 / 0, /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E3' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { target *-*-* } 15 } */
+ /* But as in DR#031, the 1/0 in an evaluated subexpression means the
+ whole expression violates the constraints. */
+ E4 = 0 * (1 / 0), /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E4' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { xfail *-*-* } 19 } */
+ E5 = INT_MAX + 1, /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 21 } */
+ /* Again, overflow in evaluated subexpression. */
+ E6 = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1), /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 24 } */
+ /* A cast does not constitute overflow in conversion. */
+ E7 = (char) INT_MAX
+};
+
+struct s {
+ int a;
+ int : 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ int : 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 33 } */
+};
+
+void
+f (void)
+{
+ /* This expression is not required to be a constant expression, so
+ it should just involve undefined behavior at runtime. */
+ int c = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+
+}
+
+/* But this expression does need to be constant (in C++ ???). */
+static int sc = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+/* { dg-error "error: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { xfail *-*-* } 47 } */
+
+/* The first two of these involve overflow, so are not null pointer
+ constants. The third has the overflow in an unevaluated
+ subexpression, so is a null pointer constant. */
+void *p = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void" "null" { target *-*-* } 53 } */
+
+void *q = 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void*'" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 56 } */
+void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1); /* { dg-bogus "integer overflow in expression" "" { xfail *-*-* } 58 } */
+
+void
+g (int i)
+{
+ switch (i)
+ {
+ case 0 * (1/0): /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ ;
+ case 1 + 0 * (INT_MAX + 1): /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 67 } */
+ ;
+ }
+}
+
+int
+h (void)
+{
+ return INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+}
+
+int
+h1 (void)
+{
+ return INT_MAX + 1 - INT_MAX; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+}
+
+void fuc (unsigned char);
+void fsc (signed char);
+
+void
+h2 (void)
+{
+ fsc (SCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fsc (SCHAR_MIN - 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fsc (UCHAR_MAX); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fsc (UCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fuc (-1);
+ fuc (UCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
+ fuc (SCHAR_MIN);
+ fuc (SCHAR_MIN - 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
+ fuc (-UCHAR_MAX); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
+}
+
+void fui (unsigned int);
+void fsi (signed int);
+
+int si;
+unsigned ui;
+
+void
+h2i (int x)
+{
+ /* For some reason, we only give certain warnings for implicit
+ conversions among values of the same precision with -Wconversion,
+ while we don't give others at all. */
+ fsi ((unsigned)INT_MAX + 1);
+ si = (unsigned)INT_MAX + 1;
+ si = x ? (unsigned)INT_MAX + 1 : 1;
+ fsi ((unsigned)INT_MAX + 2);
+ si = (unsigned)INT_MAX + 2;
+ si = x ? (unsigned)INT_MAX + 2 : 1;
+ fsi (UINT_MAX);
+ si = UINT_MAX;
+ fui (-1);
+ ui = -1;
+ ui = x ? -1 : 1U;
+ fui (INT_MIN);
+ ui = INT_MIN;
+ ui = x ? INT_MIN : 1U;
+}
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-3.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-3.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-3.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -Wno-overflow" } */
+
+#include <limits.h>
+
+int foo = INT_MAX + 1;
+
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/multiple-overflow-warn-2.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/multiple-overflow-warn-2.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/multiple-overflow-warn-2.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+/* PR c/19978 : Test for duplicated warnings (binary operators). */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-Woverflow" } */
+
+#include <limits.h>
+
+int
+g1 (void)
+{
+ return INT_MAX + 1 - INT_MAX; /* { dg-bogus "integer overflow in expression.*integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* { dg-warning "integer overflow in expression" "" { target *-*-* } 10 } */
+}
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-1.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-1.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-1.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+/* Test for diagnostics for constant overflow. */
+/* Origin: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "" } */
+
+#include <limits.h>
+
+enum e {
+ E0 = INT_MAX,
+ /* Unsigned overflow wraps around. */
+ E1 = UINT_MAX + 1,
+ /* Overflow in an unevaluated part of an expression is OK (example
+ in the standard). */
+ E2 = 2 || 1 / 0, /* { dg-bogus "warning: division by zero" "" { xfail *-*-* } 14 } */
+ E3 = 1 / 0, /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E3' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { target *-*-* } 15 } */
+ /* But as in DR#031, the 1/0 in an evaluated subexpression means the
+ whole expression violates the constraints. */
+ E4 = 0 * (1 / 0), /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E4' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { xfail *-*-* } 19 } */
+ E5 = INT_MAX + 1, /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* Again, overflow in evaluated subexpression. */
+ E6 = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1), /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* A cast does not constitute overflow in conversion. */
+ E7 = (char) INT_MAX
+};
+
+struct s {
+ int a;
+ int : 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ int : 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+};
+
+void
+f (void)
+{
+ /* This expression is not required to be a constant expression, so
+ it should just involve undefined behavior at runtime. */
+ int c = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+}
+
+/* But this expression does need to be constant. */
+static int sc = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+
+/* The first two of these involve overflow, so are not null pointer
+ constants. The third has the overflow in an unevaluated
+ subexpression, so is a null pointer constant. */
+void *p = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void" "null" { target *-*-* } 48 } */
+void *q = 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void*'" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 50 } */
+void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1); /* { dg-bogus "integer overflow in expression" "" { xfail *-*-* } 52 } */
+
+void
+g (int i)
+{
+ switch (i)
+ {
+ case 0 * (1/0): /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ ;
+ case 1 + 0 * (INT_MAX + 1): /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ ;
+ }
+}
+
+int
+h (void)
+{
+ return INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+}
+
+int
+h1 (void)
+{
+ return INT_MAX + 1 - INT_MAX; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+}
+
+void fuc (unsigned char);
+void fsc (signed char);
+
+void
+h2 (void)
+{
+ fsc (SCHAR_MAX + 1);
+ fsc (SCHAR_MIN - 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fsc (UCHAR_MAX);
+ fsc (UCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fuc (-1);
+ fuc (UCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
+ fuc (SCHAR_MIN);
+ fuc (SCHAR_MIN - 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
+ fuc (-UCHAR_MAX); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
+}
+
+void fui (unsigned int);
+void fsi (signed int);
+
+int si;
+unsigned ui;
+
+void
+h2i (int x)
+{
+ /* For some reason, we only give certain warnings for implicit
+ conversions among values of the same precision with -Wconversion,
+ while we don't give others at all. */
+ fsi ((unsigned)INT_MAX + 1);
+ si = (unsigned)INT_MAX + 1;
+ si = x ? (unsigned)INT_MAX + 1 : 1;
+ fsi ((unsigned)INT_MAX + 2);
+ si = (unsigned)INT_MAX + 2;
+ si = x ? (unsigned)INT_MAX + 2 : 1;
+ fsi (UINT_MAX);
+ si = UINT_MAX;
+ fui (-1);
+ ui = -1;
+ ui = x ? -1 : 1U;
+ fui (INT_MIN);
+ ui = INT_MIN;
+ ui = x ? INT_MIN : 1U;
+}
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-5.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-5.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-5.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+/* PR c/27273 */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-Woverflow" } */
+
+unsigned char rx_async(unsigned char p) {
+ return p & 512; /* { dg-warning "overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+}
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-6.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-6.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-6.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+/* Test non-constant operands in overflowed expressions. */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-Woverflow" } */
+
+#include <limits.h>
+
+int
+h1 (int x)
+{
+ return x * (0 * (INT_MAX + 1)); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+}
+
+int
+h2 (int x)
+{
+ return ((INT_MAX + 1) * 0) * x; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+}
+
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-1.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-1.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-1.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
+
+#include <limits.h>
+
+int foo = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "integer overflow" } */
+
Index: gcc/cp/typeck.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/cp/typeck.c (revision 120511)
+++ gcc/cp/typeck.c (working copy)
@@ -3870,6 +3870,12 @@ build_binary_op (enum tree_code code, tr
result = fold_if_not_in_template (result);
if (final_type != 0)
result = cp_convert (final_type, result);
+
+ if (TREE_OVERFLOW_P (result)
+ && !TREE_OVERFLOW_P (op0)
+ && !TREE_OVERFLOW_P (op1))
+ overflow_warning (result);
+
return result;
}
\f
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] PR c++/28986 failure to diagnose overflow for binary operators
2007-01-06 17:49 [PATCH] PR c++/28986 failure to diagnose overflow for binary operators Manuel López-Ibáñez
@ 2007-01-06 18:11 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2007-01-07 21:48 ` Manuel López-Ibáñez
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2007-01-06 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Manuel López-Ibáñez; +Cc: gcc-patches
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <lopezibanez@gmail.com> writes:
| :ADDPATCH c++:
|
| Somehow the C++ front-end is not able to diagnose overflow for the
| result of binary operators. The fix is trivial (I can hardly believe
| that this is not a regression). In addition, I have adapted the
| overflow testcases from the C front-end to the C++ testsuite with some
| minor modifications. For reference, I also provide a diff showing
| those modifications.
|
| One particular issue that I am not sure about is whether initialisers
| for static variables need to be constant in C++ as they do in C. The
| relevant hunk in the diff between C and C++ testcases is:
|
| -/* But this expression does need to be constant. */
| +/* But this expression does need to be constant (in C++ ???). */
No, C++ does not have that restriction.
(there is a new category of constant expressions in the pipeline, but
it is too early to devise a testcase for that right now).
The patch is OK, modulo removal of the C-only restriction.
-- Gaby
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] PR c++/28986 failure to diagnose overflow for binary operators
2007-01-06 18:11 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
@ 2007-01-07 21:48 ` Manuel López-Ibáñez
2007-01-07 22:15 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Manuel López-Ibáñez @ 2007-01-07 21:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gabriel Dos Reis; +Cc: gcc-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1187 bytes --]
On 06 Jan 2007 19:10:48 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> | One particular issue that I am not sure about is whether initialisers
> | for static variables need to be constant in C++ as they do in C. The
> | relevant hunk in the diff between C and C++ testcases is:
> |
> | -/* But this expression does need to be constant. */
> | +/* But this expression does need to be constant (in C++ ???). */
>
> No, C++ does not have that restriction.
>
> (there is a new category of constant expressions in the pipeline, but
> it is too early to devise a testcase for that right now).
>
> The patch is OK, modulo removal of the C-only restriction.
I have updated (and bootstrapped and regression tested again) the
patch to reflect this. Also, I have removed the testcase
g++.dg/conversion/nullptr1.C since it is already included and
thoroughly tested in g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-*.C
Another issue is that g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-*.C testcases are a
modified copy of the corresponding gcc.dg/overflow-warn-*.c. Should I
use "svn copy" and modify each of them to keep the history? Or should
I just create them as new files to avoid any trouble?
Cheers,
Manuel.
[-- Attachment #2: c-c++-overflow-testsuite.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 15360 bytes --]
--- trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/multiple-overflow-warn-1.c 2007-01-06 00:20:24.000000000 +0100
+++ trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/multiple-overflow-warn-1.C 2007-01-06 00:25:06.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
/* PR c/19978 : Test for duplicated warnings (unary operators). */
/* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-options "-std=c99 -Woverflow" } */
+/* { dg-options "-Woverflow" } */
#include <limits.h>
--- trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/multiple-overflow-warn-2.c 2007-01-06 00:21:02.000000000 +0100
+++ trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/multiple-overflow-warn-2.C 2007-01-07 13:36:56.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
/* PR c/19978 : Test for duplicated warnings (binary operators). */
/* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-options "-std=c99 -Woverflow" } */
+/* { dg-options "-Woverflow" } */
#include <limits.h>
--- trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/overflow-warn-1.c 2006-12-02 03:16:46.000000000 +0100
+++ trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-1.C 2007-01-07 13:36:56.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
/* Test for diagnostics for constant overflow. */
/* Origin: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> */
/* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-options "-std=c99" } */
+/* { dg-options "" } */
#include <limits.h>
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ enum e {
E1 = UINT_MAX + 1,
/* Overflow in an unevaluated part of an expression is OK (example
in the standard). */
- E2 = 2 || 1 / 0,
+ E2 = 2 || 1 / 0, /* { dg-bogus "warning: division by zero" "" { xfail *-*-* } 14 } */
E3 = 1 / 0, /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
/* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E3' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { target *-*-* } 15 } */
/* But as in DR#031, the 1/0 in an evaluated subexpression means the
@@ -39,17 +39,20 @@ f (void)
int c = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
}
-/* But this expression does need to be constant. */
+/* This expression is neither required to be constant. */
static int sc = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+
+// Test for overflow in null pointer constant.
+void *n = 0;
/* The first two of these involve overflow, so are not null pointer
constants. The third has the overflow in an unevaluated
subexpression, so is a null pointer constant. */
void *p = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-/* { dg-warning "warning: initialization makes pointer from integer without a cast" "null" { target *-*-* } 48 } */
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void" "null" { target *-*-* } 51 } */
void *q = 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
-/* { dg-warning "warning: initialization makes pointer from integer without a cast" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 50 } */
-void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1);
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void*'" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 53 } */
+void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1); /* { dg-bogus "integer overflow in expression" "" { xfail *-*-* } 55 } */
void
g (int i)
--- trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/overflow-warn-2.c 2006-12-02 03:17:12.000000000 +0100
+++ trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-2.C 1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,132 +0,0 @@
-/* Test for diagnostics for constant overflow. Test with -Wtraditional-conversion. */
-/* Origin: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> */
-/* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-options "-std=c99 -Wtraditional-conversion" } */
-
-#include <limits.h>
-
-enum e {
- E0 = INT_MAX,
- /* Unsigned overflow wraps around. */
- E1 = UINT_MAX + 1,
- /* Overflow in an unevaluated part of an expression is OK (example
- in the standard). */
- E2 = 2 || 1 / 0,
- E3 = 1 / 0, /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
- /* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E3' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { target *-*-* } 15 } */
- /* But as in DR#031, the 1/0 in an evaluated subexpression means the
- whole expression violates the constraints. */
- E4 = 0 * (1 / 0), /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
- /* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E4' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { xfail *-*-* } 19 } */
- E5 = INT_MAX + 1, /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
- /* Again, overflow in evaluated subexpression. */
- E6 = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1), /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
- /* A cast does not constitute overflow in conversion. */
- E7 = (char) INT_MAX
-};
-
-struct s {
- int a;
- int : 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
- int : 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-};
-
-void
-f (void)
-{
- /* This expression is not required to be a constant expression, so
- it should just involve undefined behavior at runtime. */
- int c = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-}
-
-/* But this expression does need to be constant. */
-static int sc = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-
-/* The first two of these involve overflow, so are not null pointer
- constants. The third has the overflow in an unevaluated
- subexpression, so is a null pointer constant. */
-void *p = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-/* { dg-warning "warning: initialization makes pointer from integer without a cast" "null" { target *-*-* } 48 } */
-void *q = 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
-/* { dg-warning "warning: initialization makes pointer from integer without a cast" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 50 } */
-void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1);
-
-void
-g (int i)
-{
- switch (i)
- {
- case 0 * (1/0): /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
- ;
- case 1 + 0 * (INT_MAX + 1): /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
- ;
- }
-}
-
-int
-h (void)
-{
- return INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-}
-
-int
-h1 (void)
-{
- return INT_MAX + 1 - INT_MAX; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-}
-
-void fuc (unsigned char);
-void fsc (signed char);
-
-void
-h2 (void)
-{
- fsc (SCHAR_MAX + 1);
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fsc' with different width due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 84 } */
- fsc (SCHAR_MIN - 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fsc' with different width due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 86 } */
- fsc (UCHAR_MAX);
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fsc' with different width due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 88 } */
- fsc (UCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fsc' with different width due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 90 } */
- fuc (-1);
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fuc' with different width due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 92 } */
- fuc (UCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fuc' with different width due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 94 } */
- fuc (SCHAR_MIN);
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fuc' with different width due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 96 } */
- fuc (SCHAR_MIN - 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fuc' with different width due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 98 } */
- fuc (-UCHAR_MAX); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fuc' with different width due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 100 } */
-}
-
-void fui (unsigned int);
-void fsi (signed int);
-
-int si;
-unsigned ui;
-
-void
-h2i (int x)
-{
- /* For some reason, we only give certain warnings for implicit
- conversions among values of the same precision with -Wtraditional-conversion,
- while we don't give others at all. */
- fsi ((unsigned)INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fsi' as signed due to prototype" } */
- si = (unsigned)INT_MAX + 1;
- si = x ? (unsigned)INT_MAX + 1 : 1;
- fsi ((unsigned)INT_MAX + 2); /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fsi' as signed due to prototype" } */
- si = (unsigned)INT_MAX + 2;
- si = x ? (unsigned)INT_MAX + 2 : 1;
- fsi (UINT_MAX); /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fsi' as signed due to prototype" } */
- si = UINT_MAX;
- fui (-1);
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fui' as unsigned due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 124 } */
- ui = -1;
- ui = x ? -1 : 1U;
- fui (INT_MIN);
- /* { dg-warning "warning: passing argument 1 of 'fui' as unsigned due to prototype" "-Wtraditional-conversion" { target *-*-* } 128 } */
- ui = INT_MIN;
- ui = x ? INT_MIN : 1U;
-}
--- trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/overflow-warn-3.c 2007-01-06 00:20:24.000000000 +0100
+++ trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-3.C 2007-01-07 13:36:56.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
/* Test for diagnostics for constant overflow. Test with -pedantic. */
/* Origin: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> */
/* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-options "-std=c99 -pedantic" } */
+/* { dg-options "-fpermissive -pedantic" } */
#include <limits.h>
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ enum e {
E1 = UINT_MAX + 1,
/* Overflow in an unevaluated part of an expression is OK (example
in the standard). */
- E2 = 2 || 1 / 0,
+ E2 = 2 || 1 / 0, /* { dg-bogus "warning: division by zero" "" { xfail *-*-* } 14 } */
E3 = 1 / 0, /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
/* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E3' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { target *-*-* } 15 } */
/* But as in DR#031, the 1/0 in an evaluated subexpression means the
@@ -43,19 +43,21 @@ f (void)
}
-/* But this expression does need to be constant. */
+/* This expression is neither required to be constant. */
static int sc = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-/* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 47 } */
+
+// Test for overflow in null pointer constant.
+void *n = 0;
/* The first two of these involve overflow, so are not null pointer
constants. The third has the overflow in an unevaluated
subexpression, so is a null pointer constant. */
void *p = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-/* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 53 } */
-/* { dg-warning "warning: initialization makes pointer from integer without a cast" "null" { target *-*-* } 53 } */
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void" "null" { target *-*-* } 55 } */
+
void *q = 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
-/* { dg-warning "warning: initialization makes pointer from integer without a cast" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 56 } */
-void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1);
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void*'" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 58 } */
+void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1); /* { dg-bogus "integer overflow in expression" "" { xfail *-*-* } 60 } */
void
g (int i)
@@ -65,7 +67,7 @@ g (int i)
case 0 * (1/0): /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
;
case 1 + 0 * (INT_MAX + 1): /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
- /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 67 } */
+ /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 69 } */
;
}
}
--- trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/overflow-warn-4.c 2007-01-06 00:20:24.000000000 +0100
+++ trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-4.C 2007-01-07 13:36:56.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
/* Test for diagnostics for constant overflow. Test with -pedantic-errors. */
/* Origin: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> */
/* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-options "-std=c99 -pedantic-errors" } */
+/* { dg-options "-pedantic-errors" } */
#include <limits.h>
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ enum e {
E1 = UINT_MAX + 1,
/* Overflow in an unevaluated part of an expression is OK (example
in the standard). */
- E2 = 2 || 1 / 0,
+ E2 = 2 || 1 / 0, /* { dg-bogus "warning: division by zero" "" { xfail *-*-* } 14 } */
E3 = 1 / 0, /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
/* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E3' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { target *-*-* } 15 } */
/* But as in DR#031, the 1/0 in an evaluated subexpression means the
@@ -43,19 +43,21 @@ f (void)
}
-/* But this expression does need to be constant. */
+/* This expression is neither required to be constant. */
static int sc = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-/* { dg-error "error: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 47 } */
+
+// Test for overflow in null pointer constant.
+void *n = 0;
/* The first two of these involve overflow, so are not null pointer
constants. The third has the overflow in an unevaluated
subexpression, so is a null pointer constant. */
void *p = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
-/* { dg-error "error: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 53 } */
-/* { dg-error "error: initialization makes pointer from integer without a cast" "null" { target *-*-* } 53 } */
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void" "null" { target *-*-* } 55 } */
+
void *q = 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
-/* { dg-error "error: initialization makes pointer from integer without a cast" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 56 } */
-void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1);
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void*'" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 58 } */
+void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1); /* { dg-bogus "integer overflow in expression" "" { xfail *-*-* } 60 } */
void
g (int i)
@@ -65,7 +67,7 @@ g (int i)
case 0 * (1/0): /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
;
case 1 + 0 * (INT_MAX + 1): /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
- /* { dg-error "error: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 67 } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 69 } */
;
}
}
--- trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/overflow-warn-6.c 2007-01-06 00:22:02.000000000 +0100
+++ trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-6.C 2007-01-07 13:36:56.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
/* Test non-constant operands in overflowed expressions. */
/* { dg-do compile } */
-/* { dg-options "-std=c99 -Woverflow" } */
+/* { dg-options "-Woverflow" } */
#include <limits.h>
[-- Attachment #3: c++-overflow-warning.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 18784 bytes --]
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/conversion/nullptr1.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/conversion/nullptr1.C (revision 120546)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/conversion/nullptr1.C (working copy)
@@ -1,10 +0,0 @@
-/* Test for overflow in NULL pointer constant. */
-/* { dg-do compile } */
-
-#include <limits.h>
-
-void *p = 0;
-
-void *q = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); // { dg-error "invalid conversion" }
-
-
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-3.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-3.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-3.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
+/* Test for diagnostics for constant overflow. Test with -pedantic. */
+/* Origin: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-fpermissive -pedantic" } */
+
+#include <limits.h>
+
+enum e {
+ E0 = INT_MAX,
+ /* Unsigned overflow wraps around. */
+ E1 = UINT_MAX + 1,
+ /* Overflow in an unevaluated part of an expression is OK (example
+ in the standard). */
+ E2 = 2 || 1 / 0, /* { dg-bogus "warning: division by zero" "" { xfail *-*-* } 14 } */
+ E3 = 1 / 0, /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E3' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { target *-*-* } 15 } */
+ /* But as in DR#031, the 1/0 in an evaluated subexpression means the
+ whole expression violates the constraints. */
+ E4 = 0 * (1 / 0), /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E4' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { xfail *-*-* } 19 } */
+ E5 = INT_MAX + 1, /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 21 } */
+ /* Again, overflow in evaluated subexpression. */
+ E6 = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1), /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 24 } */
+ /* A cast does not constitute overflow in conversion. */
+ E7 = (char) INT_MAX
+};
+
+struct s {
+ int a;
+ int : 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ int : 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 33 } */
+};
+
+void
+f (void)
+{
+ /* This expression is not required to be a constant expression, so
+ it should just involve undefined behavior at runtime. */
+ int c = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+
+}
+
+/* This expression is neither required to be constant. */
+static int sc = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+
+
+// Test for overflow in null pointer constant.
+void *n = 0;
+/* The first two of these involve overflow, so are not null pointer
+ constants. The third has the overflow in an unevaluated
+ subexpression, so is a null pointer constant. */
+void *p = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void" "null" { target *-*-* } 55 } */
+
+void *q = 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void*'" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 58 } */
+void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1); /* { dg-bogus "integer overflow in expression" "" { xfail *-*-* } 60 } */
+
+void
+g (int i)
+{
+ switch (i)
+ {
+ case 0 * (1/0): /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ ;
+ case 1 + 0 * (INT_MAX + 1): /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 69 } */
+ ;
+ }
+}
+
+int
+h (void)
+{
+ return INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+}
+
+int
+h1 (void)
+{
+ return INT_MAX + 1 - INT_MAX; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+}
+
+void fuc (unsigned char);
+void fsc (signed char);
+
+void
+h2 (void)
+{
+ fsc (SCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fsc (SCHAR_MIN - 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fsc (UCHAR_MAX); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fsc (UCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fuc (-1);
+ fuc (UCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
+ fuc (SCHAR_MIN);
+ fuc (SCHAR_MIN - 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
+ fuc (-UCHAR_MAX); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
+}
+
+void fui (unsigned int);
+void fsi (signed int);
+
+int si;
+unsigned ui;
+
+void
+h2i (int x)
+{
+ /* For some reason, we only give certain warnings for implicit
+ conversions among values of the same precision with -Wconversion,
+ while we don't give others at all. */
+ fsi ((unsigned)INT_MAX + 1);
+ si = (unsigned)INT_MAX + 1;
+ si = x ? (unsigned)INT_MAX + 1 : 1;
+ fsi ((unsigned)INT_MAX + 2);
+ si = (unsigned)INT_MAX + 2;
+ si = x ? (unsigned)INT_MAX + 2 : 1;
+ fsi (UINT_MAX);
+ si = UINT_MAX;
+ fui (-1);
+ ui = -1;
+ ui = x ? -1 : 1U;
+ fui (INT_MIN);
+ ui = INT_MIN;
+ ui = x ? INT_MIN : 1U;
+}
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-2.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-2.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-2.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -Woverflow" } */
+
+#include <limits.h>
+
+int foo = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "integer overflow" } */
+
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-4.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-4.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-4.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
+/* Test for diagnostics for constant overflow. Test with -pedantic-errors. */
+/* Origin: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-pedantic-errors" } */
+
+#include <limits.h>
+
+enum e {
+ E0 = INT_MAX,
+ /* Unsigned overflow wraps around. */
+ E1 = UINT_MAX + 1,
+ /* Overflow in an unevaluated part of an expression is OK (example
+ in the standard). */
+ E2 = 2 || 1 / 0, /* { dg-bogus "warning: division by zero" "" { xfail *-*-* } 14 } */
+ E3 = 1 / 0, /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E3' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { target *-*-* } 15 } */
+ /* But as in DR#031, the 1/0 in an evaluated subexpression means the
+ whole expression violates the constraints. */
+ E4 = 0 * (1 / 0), /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E4' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { xfail *-*-* } 19 } */
+ E5 = INT_MAX + 1, /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 21 } */
+ /* Again, overflow in evaluated subexpression. */
+ E6 = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1), /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 24 } */
+ /* A cast does not constitute overflow in conversion. */
+ E7 = (char) INT_MAX
+};
+
+struct s {
+ int a;
+ int : 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ int : 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 33 } */
+};
+
+void
+f (void)
+{
+ /* This expression is not required to be a constant expression, so
+ it should just involve undefined behavior at runtime. */
+ int c = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+
+}
+
+/* This expression is neither required to be constant. */
+static int sc = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+
+
+// Test for overflow in null pointer constant.
+void *n = 0;
+/* The first two of these involve overflow, so are not null pointer
+ constants. The third has the overflow in an unevaluated
+ subexpression, so is a null pointer constant. */
+void *p = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void" "null" { target *-*-* } 55 } */
+
+void *q = 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void*'" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 58 } */
+void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1); /* { dg-bogus "integer overflow in expression" "" { xfail *-*-* } 60 } */
+
+void
+g (int i)
+{
+ switch (i)
+ {
+ case 0 * (1/0): /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ ;
+ case 1 + 0 * (INT_MAX + 1): /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: overflow in constant expression" "constant" { target *-*-* } 69 } */
+ ;
+ }
+}
+
+int
+h (void)
+{
+ return INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+}
+
+int
+h1 (void)
+{
+ return INT_MAX + 1 - INT_MAX; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+}
+
+void fuc (unsigned char);
+void fsc (signed char);
+
+void
+h2 (void)
+{
+ fsc (SCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fsc (SCHAR_MIN - 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fsc (UCHAR_MAX); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fsc (UCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fuc (-1);
+ fuc (UCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
+ fuc (SCHAR_MIN);
+ fuc (SCHAR_MIN - 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
+ fuc (-UCHAR_MAX); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
+}
+
+void fui (unsigned int);
+void fsi (signed int);
+
+int si;
+unsigned ui;
+
+void
+h2i (int x)
+{
+ /* For some reason, we only give certain warnings for implicit
+ conversions among values of the same precision with -Wconversion,
+ while we don't give others at all. */
+ fsi ((unsigned)INT_MAX + 1);
+ si = (unsigned)INT_MAX + 1;
+ si = x ? (unsigned)INT_MAX + 1 : 1;
+ fsi ((unsigned)INT_MAX + 2);
+ si = (unsigned)INT_MAX + 2;
+ si = x ? (unsigned)INT_MAX + 2 : 1;
+ fsi (UINT_MAX);
+ si = UINT_MAX;
+ fui (-1);
+ ui = -1;
+ ui = x ? -1 : 1U;
+ fui (INT_MIN);
+ ui = INT_MIN;
+ ui = x ? INT_MIN : 1U;
+}
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-3.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-3.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-3.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -Wno-overflow" } */
+
+#include <limits.h>
+
+int foo = INT_MAX + 1;
+
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/multiple-overflow-warn-2.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/multiple-overflow-warn-2.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/multiple-overflow-warn-2.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+/* PR c/19978 : Test for duplicated warnings (binary operators). */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-Woverflow" } */
+
+#include <limits.h>
+
+int
+g1 (void)
+{
+ return INT_MAX + 1 - INT_MAX; /* { dg-bogus "integer overflow in expression.*integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* { dg-warning "integer overflow in expression" "" { target *-*-* } 10 } */
+}
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-1.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-1.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-1.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+/* Test for diagnostics for constant overflow. */
+/* Origin: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "" } */
+
+#include <limits.h>
+
+enum e {
+ E0 = INT_MAX,
+ /* Unsigned overflow wraps around. */
+ E1 = UINT_MAX + 1,
+ /* Overflow in an unevaluated part of an expression is OK (example
+ in the standard). */
+ E2 = 2 || 1 / 0, /* { dg-bogus "warning: division by zero" "" { xfail *-*-* } 14 } */
+ E3 = 1 / 0, /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E3' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { target *-*-* } 15 } */
+ /* But as in DR#031, the 1/0 in an evaluated subexpression means the
+ whole expression violates the constraints. */
+ E4 = 0 * (1 / 0), /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ /* { dg-error "error: enumerator value for 'E4' is not an integer constant" "enum error" { xfail *-*-* } 19 } */
+ E5 = INT_MAX + 1, /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* Again, overflow in evaluated subexpression. */
+ E6 = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1), /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ /* A cast does not constitute overflow in conversion. */
+ E7 = (char) INT_MAX
+};
+
+struct s {
+ int a;
+ int : 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ int : 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+};
+
+void
+f (void)
+{
+ /* This expression is not required to be a constant expression, so
+ it should just involve undefined behavior at runtime. */
+ int c = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+}
+
+/* This expression is neither required to be constant. */
+static int sc = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+
+
+// Test for overflow in null pointer constant.
+void *n = 0;
+/* The first two of these involve overflow, so are not null pointer
+ constants. The third has the overflow in an unevaluated
+ subexpression, so is a null pointer constant. */
+void *p = 0 * (INT_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void" "null" { target *-*-* } 51 } */
+void *q = 0 * (1 / 0); /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+/* { dg-error "invalid conversion from 'int' to 'void*'" "null" { xfail *-*-* } 53 } */
+void *r = (1 ? 0 : INT_MAX+1); /* { dg-bogus "integer overflow in expression" "" { xfail *-*-* } 55 } */
+
+void
+g (int i)
+{
+ switch (i)
+ {
+ case 0 * (1/0): /* { dg-warning "warning: division by zero" } */
+ ;
+ case 1 + 0 * (INT_MAX + 1): /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+ ;
+ }
+}
+
+int
+h (void)
+{
+ return INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+}
+
+int
+h1 (void)
+{
+ return INT_MAX + 1 - INT_MAX; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+}
+
+void fuc (unsigned char);
+void fsc (signed char);
+
+void
+h2 (void)
+{
+ fsc (SCHAR_MAX + 1);
+ fsc (SCHAR_MIN - 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fsc (UCHAR_MAX);
+ fsc (UCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+ fuc (-1);
+ fuc (UCHAR_MAX + 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
+ fuc (SCHAR_MIN);
+ fuc (SCHAR_MIN - 1); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
+ fuc (-UCHAR_MAX); /* { dg-warning "warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type" } */
+}
+
+void fui (unsigned int);
+void fsi (signed int);
+
+int si;
+unsigned ui;
+
+void
+h2i (int x)
+{
+ /* For some reason, we only give certain warnings for implicit
+ conversions among values of the same precision with -Wconversion,
+ while we don't give others at all. */
+ fsi ((unsigned)INT_MAX + 1);
+ si = (unsigned)INT_MAX + 1;
+ si = x ? (unsigned)INT_MAX + 1 : 1;
+ fsi ((unsigned)INT_MAX + 2);
+ si = (unsigned)INT_MAX + 2;
+ si = x ? (unsigned)INT_MAX + 2 : 1;
+ fsi (UINT_MAX);
+ si = UINT_MAX;
+ fui (-1);
+ ui = -1;
+ ui = x ? -1 : 1U;
+ fui (INT_MIN);
+ ui = INT_MIN;
+ ui = x ? INT_MIN : 1U;
+}
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-5.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-5.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-5.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+/* PR c/27273 */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-Woverflow" } */
+
+unsigned char rx_async(unsigned char p) {
+ return p & 512; /* { dg-warning "overflow in implicit constant conversion" } */
+}
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-6.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-6.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-6.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+/* Test non-constant operands in overflowed expressions. */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-Woverflow" } */
+
+#include <limits.h>
+
+int
+h1 (int x)
+{
+ return x * (0 * (INT_MAX + 1)); /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+}
+
+int
+h2 (int x)
+{
+ return ((INT_MAX + 1) * 0) * x; /* { dg-warning "warning: integer overflow in expression" } */
+}
+
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-1.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-1.C (revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Woverflow-1.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
+
+#include <limits.h>
+
+int foo = INT_MAX + 1; /* { dg-warning "integer overflow" } */
+
Index: gcc/cp/typeck.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/cp/typeck.c (revision 120546)
+++ gcc/cp/typeck.c (working copy)
@@ -3870,6 +3870,12 @@
result = fold_if_not_in_template (result);
if (final_type != 0)
result = cp_convert (final_type, result);
+
+ if (TREE_OVERFLOW_P (result)
+ && !TREE_OVERFLOW_P (op0)
+ && !TREE_OVERFLOW_P (op1))
+ overflow_warning (result);
+
return result;
}
\f
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] PR c++/28986 failure to diagnose overflow for binary operators
2007-01-07 21:48 ` Manuel López-Ibáñez
@ 2007-01-07 22:15 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2007-01-07 22:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Manuel López-Ibáñez; +Cc: gcc-patches
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <lopezibanez@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
| Another issue is that g++.dg/warn/overflow-warn-*.C testcases are a
| modified copy of the corresponding gcc.dg/overflow-warn-*.c. Should I
| use "svn copy" and modify each of them to keep the history? Or should
| I just create them as new files to avoid any trouble?
either way is fine with me.
-- Gaby
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-01-07 22:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-01-06 17:49 [PATCH] PR c++/28986 failure to diagnose overflow for binary operators Manuel López-Ibáñez
2007-01-06 18:11 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2007-01-07 21:48 ` Manuel López-Ibáñez
2007-01-07 22:15 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
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).