On 09/04/17 08:54, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> I wrote an explanation of the current status of Wstrict-overflow to the
> best of my knowledge:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#Wstrict_overflow
>
> I didn't mention GIMPLE because it is often the case that the root of
> the problem i
On 03/09/17 23:00, Bruce Korb wrote:
RFE's are for this list: please improve the message.
The message does not have to be a dissertation, but messages
nowadays can certainly include URL's to direct people to
reasonable places. I'd suggest something like:
gcc.gnu.org/gcc-messages/xxx
WRT
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Bruce Korb:
>
>> I know about all these theoretical possibilities of numbers behaving
>> in strange ways when arithmetic optimizations assume that signed
>> overflow won't occur when they actually might. Yep, it creates subtle
>> bugs.
* Bruce Korb:
> I know about all these theoretical possibilities of numbers behaving
> in strange ways when arithmetic optimizations assume that signed
> overflow won't occur when they actually might. Yep, it creates subtle
> bugs. The warning is worthwhile. Still and all:
>
> 485 tvdi
Per request, the inlined functions
On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
> I know about all these theoretical possibilities of numbers behaving
> in strange ways when arithmetic optimizations assume that signed
> overflow won't occur when they actually might. Yep, it creates subtle
>
