Hi,
On 11/10/2014 06:16 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I don't think we want to suppress this warning in general. The
problem in this PR is that the warning code is failing to recognize
that the first operand is constant false.
Thanks. Then, shall we do something like the below? Passes testing.
On 11/11/2014 08:04 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
- tree cond = RECUR (TREE_OPERAND (t, 0));
+ tree cond
+ = maybe_constant_value (fold_non_dependent_expr_sfinae
+ (RECUR (TREE_OPERAND (t, 0)), tf_none));
I like this approach, but if the result of
Hi,
On 11/11/2014 02:19 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/11/2014 08:04 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
-tree cond = RECUR (TREE_OPERAND (t, 0));
+tree cond
+ = maybe_constant_value (fold_non_dependent_expr_sfinae
+ (RECUR (TREE_OPERAND (t, 0)), tf_none));
I like this
OK.
Jason
Hi,
On 11/11/2014 04:03 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
OK.
Committed. What about 4.9? Technically the issue is a regression, but in
my opinion the fix isn't completely trivial for a release branch..
Paolo.
On 11/11/2014 12:37 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Committed. What about 4.9? Technically the issue is a regression, but in
my opinion the fix isn't completely trivial for a release branch..
I think it's safe enough for a regression fix.
Jason
Hi,
as far as I can see this 4.9/5 regression, where we spuriously warn
about the left shifts in the templates, has to do with r208183, where
Jason replaced c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings fiddling in
tsubst_copy_and_build with two warning_sentinels, on warn_type_limits
and warn_div_by_zero.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 05:32:49PM +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote:
PR c++/63265
* c-family/c.opt ([Wshift-count-negative, Wshift-count-overflow]): Add.
Note, c-family/ has its own ChangeLog.
Jakub
On 11/10/2014 12:16 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I don't think we want to suppress this warning in general. The problem
in this PR is that the warning code is failing to recognize that the
first operand is constant false.
But adding the warning options is OK.
Jason
I don't think we want to suppress this warning in general. The problem
in this PR is that the warning code is failing to recognize that the
first operand is constant false.
Jason
Hi,
On 11/10/2014 06:16 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/10/2014 12:16 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I don't think we want to suppress this warning in general. The problem
in this PR is that the warning code is failing to recognize that the
first operand is constant false.
But adding the warning
11 matches
Mail list logo
