------- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-17 17:11 -------
This patch seems to fix the problem and still warn for the interesting cases.
Could you all test it in your targets? I can only test
x86-64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Index: gcc/c-common.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/c-common.c (revision 147636)
+++ gcc/c-common.c (working copy)
@@ -1782,14 +1782,12 @@ warn_logical_operator (location_t locati
again at the end. */
if (or_op)
in0_p = !in0_p, in1_p = !in1_p;
/* If both expressions are the same, if we can merge the ranges, and we
- can build the range test, return it or it inverted. If one of the
- ranges is always true or always false, consider it to be the same
- expression as the other. */
- if ((lhs == 0 || rhs == 0 || operand_equal_p (lhs, rhs, 0))
+ can build the range test, return it or it inverted. */
+ if (lhs && rhs && operand_equal_p (lhs, rhs, 0)
&& merge_ranges (&in_p, &low, &high, in0_p, low0, high0,
in1_p, low1, high1)
&& 0 != (tem = build_range_check (type,
lhs != 0 ? lhs
: rhs != 0 ? rhs : integer_zero_node,
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-05-17 17:11:44
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40172
