https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102291
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102291
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I don't think TREE_OVERFLOW should be introduced in folding expressions
that didn't have undefined behavior in the original source code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102291
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The #c1 testcase also started to warn with r10-7344.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102291
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I have tried:
--- gcc/convert.c.jj2021-01-04 10:25:38.977232194 +0100
+++ gcc/convert.c 2021-12-06 16:28:51.279775640 +0100
@@ -398,6 +398,9 @@ do_narrow (location_t loc,
Exception: the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102291
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102291
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102291
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102291
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102291
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|dubious overflow warning|[9/10/11/12 Regression]
