[Bug tree-optimization/107184] Copy warnings in dump files

[glisse at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107184

--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse  ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Confirmed - for array-bounds I added some "array-bound warning for %E"
> printing the SSA name/stmt in the dump file.

Sounds good, I'll try that next time the warning is of the array-bound type.

> What I find useful in tracking down things is to -fdump-tree-FOO-lineno which
> at least gets you the locations in the dump.

Ah, I didn't know that one (-lineno isn't part of -all). It is nice, but with
inlining and all the corresponding source line actually appears hundreds of
times in the dump, and this does not tell me which of those causes the warning.

[Bug tree-optimization/107184] Copy warnings in dump files

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107184

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Last reconfirmed||2022-10-10
 Ever confirmed|0   |1
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW

--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener  ---
Confirmed - for array-bounds I added some "array-bound warning for %E" printing
the SSA name/stmt in the dump file.

What I find useful in tracking down things is to -fdump-tree-FOO-lineno which
at least gets you the locations in the dump.

So - patches to amend dump files welcome!

[Bug tree-optimization/107184] Copy warnings in dump files

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107184

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski  ---
This is where analyzer comes into hand really.

Maybe the warning should suggest using analyzer for more details? Even if they
are two different code bases for the warning and analyzer it seems like they
could work together