------- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-24 13:31 ------- (In reply to comment #4) > > What would be the implementation steps to fix this issue?
1) Create a small self-contained testcase 2) Examine the dumps (-fdump-tree- options) and debug the compiler to know exactly why the warning is missing. Typical cases are common constant propagation, not enough alias information, not enough optimization, too much optimization, and bugs. 3) Propose a way to fix the above problem that does not regress on optimization. 4) Send a patch to gcc-patches (http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html) 5) Profit. Any of those steps would help. Unfortunately, they have to be done in order. Before confirming this, we would need to do (2), and we don't even have (1). -- manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu dot org OtherBugsDependingO| |24639 nThis| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42561
