subject:"\[Bug tree\-optimization\/52904\] \-Wstrict\-overflow false alarm with bounded loop"

[Bug tree-optimization/52904] -Wstrict-overflow false alarm with bounded loop

2021-09-14 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0 Status|REOPENED

[Bug tree-optimization/52904] -Wstrict-overflow false alarm with bounded loop

2016-08-17 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||xfail Status|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/52904] -Wstrict-overflow false alarm with bounded loop

2014-08-17 Thread kugan at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904 --- Comment #12 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kugan Date: Mon Aug 18 06:28:35 2014 New Revision: 214084 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=214084&root=gcc&view=rev Log: gcc/testsuite 2014-08-18 Kugan Vivekanandarajah PR tree

[Bug tree-optimization/52904] -Wstrict-overflow false alarm with bounded loop

2014-08-08 Thread kugan at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904 --- Comment #11 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org --- I agree. I will post a patch to add this test-case and let the maintainers decide if this is necessary.

[Bug tree-optimization/52904] -Wstrict-overflow false alarm with bounded loop

2014-08-08 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Commen

[Bug tree-optimization/52904] -Wstrict-overflow false alarm with bounded loop

2014-08-08 Thread kugan at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904 kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/52904] -Wstrict-overflow false alarm with bounded loop

2013-12-12 Thread eggert at gnu dot org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904 --- Comment #8 from eggert at gnu dot org --- On 12/12/2013 10:19 AM, Laurent.Rineau__gcc at normalesup dot org wrote: > The developer has two solutions: > - remove that test, > - or compile with -fno-strict-overflow. Sure, and because of this

[Bug tree-optimization/52904] -Wstrict-overflow false alarm with bounded loop

2013-12-12 Thread Laurent.Rineau__gcc at normalesup dot org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904 --- Comment #7 from Laurent Rineau --- In the test case, nfds cannot overflow, because of two reasons: - nfds is only incremented from 0, and -fstrict-overflow allows gcc to suppose it will not overflow, - the number of iterations of the loop

[Bug tree-optimization/52904] -Wstrict-overflow false alarm with bounded loop

2013-12-12 Thread eggert at gnu dot org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904 --- Comment #6 from eggert at gnu dot org --- > That diagnostic seems right, according to the documentation of > -Wstrict-overflow. The diagnostic is "right" only in the sense that it is correctly reporting that GCC does not deduce that signed ov