https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60090
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
This one still happens on the trunk even with PR 107465 fixed. The reason is
because even though a warning here is correct, it is not wanted due to
requiring constant folding. Note you can get also the incorr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60090
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #5)
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-11/msg00253.html
Exactly. I hope I can tackle at least a part of it in next stage 1.
> In those cases where folding helps t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60090
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60090
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
I believe we strive for the warnings be independent of the optimization level,
but it's not always possible, we have tons of bugs where -Wuninitialized
depends on the optimization level, sometimes -Warray-boun
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60090
--- Comment #3 from Chengnian Sun ---
Thanks, Marek.
May I ask another question on the Gcc optimizations and warnings? Is there a
policy that the warnings should be independent of the optimization levels? That
is, for all optimization levels, Gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60090
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
C++ folds while parsing and here for both -O0 -O we get
y.c: In function ‘int fn1(unsigned char, unsigned char)’:
y.c:3:18: warning: comparison of promoted ~unsigned with unsigned
[-Wsign-compare]
return (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60090
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
