On 2026-02-27 07:30, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi!
On 2/26/26 18:08, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2026-02-26 at 17:38 +0100, Torbjörn SVENSSON wrote:
Ok for trunk?
Yes; thanks.
(fwiw I added this test during the development of r16-6063-
g0b786d961d4426 as a regression test for an ICE I temporarily
introduced in earlier versions of that patch).
--
Without -Wno-overflow, for arm-none-eabi targets, I see warnings
like:
coreutils-group_number.c:13:21: warning: conversion from 'long long
unsigned int' to 'size_t' {aka 'unsigned int'} changes value from
'18446744073709551615' to '4294967295' [-Woverflow]
Looks like this PR 123191 ?
Ah yes, indeed. I'll note it in the commit message.
Note a dg-require-effective-target lp64 might be a better workaround?
I could use lp64 instead, if that's the preferred solution.
Either the test will pass or be unsupported.
As it, apparently, disclosed an ICE before, my hunch is that the same ICE
may have happened for 32bit as well as 64bit as I do not see that the
initial value of the variable would have that big impact on the ICE
condition.
I'm fine either way, so please let me know what you want me to push. :)
Kind regards,
Torbjörn
Thanks,
Christophe
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* c-c++-common/analyzer/coreutils-group_number.c: Add
-Wno-overflow.
Signed-off-by: Torbjörn SVENSSON <[email protected]>
---
gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/coreutils-group_number.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/coreutils-
group_number.c b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/coreutils-
group_number.c
index 95fa6a211b0..f5976e93a2c 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/coreutils-group_number.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/analyzer/coreutils-group_number.c
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
/* { dg-additional-options "-Wno-analyzer-too-complex" } */
/* { dg-additional-options "-Wno-analyzer-symbol-too-complex" } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-Wno-overflow" } */
typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
