https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79095
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
With the v.size() > 0 guard enabled and my VRP tweaks I get no warnings. Plan
is to either polish up the VRP tweaks or turn them into a match.pd pattern.
Not sure which is going to be better yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79095
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
I agree that calling v.resize(v.size() - 0) when v.size() is zero is a bug in
the program and diagnosing it should be a good thing (I think that corresponds
to the test case I pasted in comment #2 and what I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79095
--- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So with a prototype patch to simplify the overflow checks to zero/not zero, we
still get the one warning. The more I look at the code, the more I think the
warning is justified.
Ponder the case where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79095
--- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Sigh. I was looking at the wrong dump. We don't need to deal with
ADD_OVERFLOW.
Looking at the real test for this BZ, the guarding block has the right form:
[100.00%]:
_7 = MEM[(unsigned int * *)];
_8 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79095
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
> So the simplified tests are interesting, but ultimately too simplified.
You're right, the test case in comment #2 is oversimplified. The one in the
thread on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79095
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> VRP already handles that,
Nice :-) Thanks and sorry for not checking myself.
> IFN_*_OVERFLOW can appear already during gimplification if
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79095
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #5)
> I thought ADD_OVERFLOW would appear in the widening_mul pass, i.e. after all
> the VRP passes are done? On the other hand, teaching VRP about *_OVERFLOW
> sounds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79095
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
> So the simplified tests are interesting, but ultimately too simplified. The
> VRP prototype which works on the simplified testcases doesn't work on the
> real
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79095
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
So the simplified tests are interesting, but ultimately too simplified. The
VRP prototype which works on the simplified testcases doesn't work on the real
testcase for this BZ.
The key sequences look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79095
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79095
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79095
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79095
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79095
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target Milestone|---
14 matches
Mail list logo
