On March 29, 2016 7:54:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 07:46:32PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> On 03/29/2016 07:28 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> >On 03/29/2016 11:23 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> >>Hi! >> >> >> >>The recent change to num_imm_uses (to add support for NULL >USE_STMT) >> >>broke it totally, fortunately we have just one user of this >function >> >>right now. I've filed a PR for GCC 7 so that we get a warning on >this. >> >> >> >>Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and >i686-linux, >> >>ok for >> >>trunk? >> >> >> >>2016-03-29 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> >> >> >> >> PR tree-optimization/70405 >> >> * ssa-iterators.h (num_imm_uses): Add missing braces. >> >> >> >> * gcc.dg/pr70405.c: New test. >> >Not caught by -Wmisleading-indentation? Seems like it'd be worth a >bug >> >report for that. >> >> Actually this looks like the dangling-else regression I've complained >about >> previously. When I added that warning, I intentionally made it catch >> >> if (foo) >> for (..) >> if (bar) >> ... >> else >> .... >> >> but at some point the code was changed so as to no longer warn for >this >> case. > >Indeed, GCC 3.4 warns about this: >pr70405-3.c:7: warning: suggest explicit braces to avoid ambiguous >`else' >That warning is still in there under -Wparentheses, but doesn't trigger >anymore.
Sounds like poor testsuite coverage then... Did both FEs warn? Richard. > Jakub
