On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 09:12:29AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> The PPC port is stumbling over the new integer in boolean context warnings.
>
> In particular this code from rs6000_option_override_internal is
> problematical:
>
> HOST_WIDE_INT flags = ((TARGET_DEFAULT) ? TARGET_DEFAULT
> :
> processor_target_table[cpu_index].target_enable);
>
> The compiler is flagging the (TARGET_DEFAULT) condition. That's
> supposed to to be a boolean.
>
> After all the macro expansions are done it ultimately looks something
> like this:
>
> long flags = (((1L << 7)) ? (1L << 7)
> : processor_target_table[cpu_index].target_enable);
>
> Note the (1L << 7) used as the condition for the ternary. That's what
> has the int-in-boolean-context warning tripping. It's a false positive
> IMHO.
Yes, there is an implicit conversion to bool here afaics. So can the
misfiring warning be fixed instead, please?
> diff --git a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> index 5e35e33..38a5226 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c
> @@ -3880,7 +3880,7 @@ rs6000_option_override_internal (bool global_init_p)
>
> If there is a TARGET_DEFAULT, use that. Otherwise fall back to using
> -mcpu=powerpc, -mcpu=powerpc64, or -mcpu=powerpc64le defaults. */
> - HOST_WIDE_INT flags = ((TARGET_DEFAULT) ? TARGET_DEFAULT
> + HOST_WIDE_INT flags = ((TARGET_DEFAULT) != 0 ? TARGET_DEFAULT
> : processor_target_table[cpu_index].target_enable);
> rs6000_isa_flags |= (flags & ~rs6000_isa_flags_explicit);
> }
Eww.
HOST_WIDE_INT flags = TARGET_DEFAULT;
if (flags == 0)
flags = processor_target_table[cpu_index].target_enable);
instead, if you have to do anything?
Segher
