[Bug tree-optimization/59932] spurious undefined behavior warning on valid code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59932 Zhendong Su changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |WONTFIX --- Comment #9 from Zhendong Su --

[Bug tree-optimization/59932] spurious undefined behavior warning on valid code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59932 Zhendong Su changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/59932] spurious undefined behavior warning on valid code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59932 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Zhendong Su from comment #6) > Thanks for your explanation Jakub. It's more clear now, but I still don't > fully understand the difference in behavior from 4.8 to the current trunk. > > Is it be

[Bug tree-optimization/59932] spurious undefined behavior warning on valid code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59932 --- Comment #6 from Zhendong Su --- Thanks for your explanation Jakub. It's more clear now, but I still don't fully understand the difference in behavior from 4.8 to the current trunk. Is it because 4.8's support for warning undefined behaviors

[Bug tree-optimization/59932] spurious undefined behavior warning on valid code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59932 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 f

[Bug tree-optimization/59932] spurious undefined behavior warning on valid code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59932 --- Comment #4 from Zhendong Su --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > (In reply to Zhendong Su from comment #2) > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > > > I don't see why you think this is not undefined behavior. > > > If p1

[Bug tree-optimization/59932] spurious undefined behavior warning on valid code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59932 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Zhendong Su from comment #2) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > > I don't see why you think this is not undefined behavior. > > If p1 starts at 1, it cannot turn into 0 as p1++ overfl

[Bug tree-optimization/59932] spurious undefined behavior warning on valid code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59932 --- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > I don't see why you think this is not undefined behavior. > If p1 starts at 1, it cannot turn into 0 as p1++ overflows during the > 2147483646th iteration. Andrew,

[Bug tree-optimization/59932] spurious undefined behavior warning on valid code

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59932 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I don't see why you think this is not undefined behavior. If p1 starts at 1, it cannot turn into 0 as p1++ overflows during the 2147483646th iteration.