https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116356
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-17
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116356
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peppe at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116356
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
There is no location information being passed to the warning. So we get the
location at the end of the function instead.
Wstrict-overflow is one of the worst option designed really.
Which is why it is not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116356
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
#0 warning (opt=opt@entry=823, gmsgid=gmsgid@entry=0x2abc5d8 "assuming signed
overflow does not occur when changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to X cmp C2 -+ C1") at
/home/apinski/src/upstream-gcc-isel/gcc/gcc/diagnost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116356
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Created attachment 58921
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58921&action=edit
full testcase
Next time please attach the full testcase (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#dontwant):
```
What we do n
