On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/08/2014 12:38 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
What rationale would you give for not warning on 1-1?
Because it's not likely to be a case of argument transposition; it's more
likely to be an expression that just happens
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 12:26:09PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
I suppose we could use an INTEGER_CST distinct from the one in
TYPE_CACHED_VALUES for raw 0, with a TREE_LANG_FLAG set.
Ick. (please no - at least make sure it doesn't survive anywhere to the
middle-end, like fold or gimple).
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 12:26:09PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
I suppose we could use an INTEGER_CST distinct from the one in
TYPE_CACHED_VALUES for raw 0, with a TREE_LANG_FLAG set.
Ick. (please no - at least make
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 12:51:32PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
At least it shouldn't (they are not required to be shared and usually are not
if they've gone a transition from TREE_OVERFLOW to !TREE_OVERFLOW).
Well, still feels ugly to me - but it's Jasons call in the end.
Another
All of these warnings (-Wsizeof-pointer-memaccess, -Wsizeof-array-argument
and -Wmemset-transposed-args) are implemented in a hackish way, because we
fold everything too early. Perhaps for such analysis we want a FOLDED_EXPR
which would have arguments what it has been folded to and the
On 07/09/2014 10:40 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
All of these warnings (-Wsizeof-pointer-memaccess, -Wsizeof-array-argument
and -Wmemset-transposed-args) are implemented in a hackish way, because we
fold everything too early. Perhaps for such analysis we want a FOLDED_EXPR
which would have
I don't think we want to warn about e.g. 1-1, only about literal 0.
Original Message
From: Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com
Sent: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 05:50 AM
To: Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com; Jason Merrill
ja...@redhat.com; Carlos O'Donell car...@redhat.com; Siddhesh
On 07/08/2014 08:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
This is an attempt to move the warning about transposed memset arguments
from the glibc headers to gcc FEs. The problem with the warning in glibc
is that it uses __builtin_constant_p and e.g. jump threading very often
makes the warning
On 07/08/2014 03:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I don't think we want to warn about e.g. 1-1, only about literal 0.
What rationale would you give for not warning on 1-1?
Cheers,
Carlos.
On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 03:24:52PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
I don't think we want to warn about e.g. 1-1, only about literal 0.
Well, at least literal 0 and '\0'. In any case, it seems both the C and C++
FEs fold the arguments too early, already during the parsing of the argument
list. In
On 07/08/2014 12:38 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
What rationale would you give for not warning on 1-1?
Because it's not likely to be a case of argument transposition; it's
more likely to be an expression that just happens to evaluate to 0,
which is fine as a length argument to memset.
On
11 matches
Mail list logo
