https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57367
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57367
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #6)
> Disappointing, Richard, that in 4.8/4.9 (vs 4.7) we don't seem to warn at
> all for the testcase in Comment#4 too. I'm wondering if the tree-vrp.c check
> couldn'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57367
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57367
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini ---
Remember that -O2 is required for this kind of middle-end check. A front-end
check would not.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57367
--- Comment #4 from Guido Del Sarto ---
I do not receive warnings with the following (no dead code).
#
#include
void warning( int pippo[100] )
{
pippo[1000] += pippo[0];
printf( "%d\n", pippo[1000] ) ;
}
int main(int argc, char**ar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57367
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
Yeah, shared between the front-ends, this isn't a C++-only issue, of course.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57367
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57367
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
This is all dead code, gcc discards it before it looks at possible issues.
