https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81876
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law <law at redhat dot com> --- Richi. I do worry about cases where we exploit strict-overflow semantics. It'd be nice to be able to warn about them, but I certainly agree that stability is a problem. With instability, messaging to and expectations of the user community become serious concerns. I won't object to moving them out of the middle end. WRT locations/diagnostics for things like ldist where GCC conjures up code that has little resemblance to what the user wrote. It's a real issue once we issue the warning -- the user has no clue what it meant. On the other hand those warnings (particularly those that result from ldist) are highlighting real issues. Bogus user code, poor optimization, even under-specified language from ISO. Examples of all can be found in BZ.
