[Bug c/31878] Spurious warnings generated due to not optimizing first

2007-05-11 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-11 11:38 --- (In reply to comment #4) So obviously it knows, at the level of the code generator, it's just a question of propagating that information back to the frontend. I wrote: yes, as far as GCC knows when it emits the

[Bug c/31878] Spurious warnings generated due to not optimizing first

2007-05-10 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-10 15:50 --- (In reply to comment #2) So are you saying that it is the case that the f() function below might return without a value? Since that is what the warning suggests. assert() does not return a value and it is the last .

[Bug c/31878] Spurious warnings generated due to not optimizing first

2007-05-10 Thread lloyd at randombit dot net
--- Comment #4 from lloyd at randombit dot net 2007-05-10 17:51 --- Manuel, For your example code, GCC _is_ aware that the function always returns, since the code it generates for it (with optimization) is: f: movl%edi, %eax ret So obviously it knows, at the level

[Bug c/31878] Spurious warnings generated due to not optimizing first

2007-05-09 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 22:07 --- We should get the same warning while compiling with optimizations and while compiling without so I don't think this is a bug. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31878

[Bug c/31878] Spurious warnings generated due to not optimizing first

2007-05-09 Thread lloyd at randombit dot net
--- Comment #2 from lloyd at randombit dot net 2007-05-09 22:16 --- So are you saying that it is the case that the f() function below might return without a value? Since that is what the warning suggests. (My interpretation re the optimizer may be completely off, I don't know GCC