On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Kugan
wrote:
Did you verify the testcase fails before the revision that fixed it?
Esp. the placement of the dg-bogus looks bogus to me.
>>>
>>> I tried it on Linaro 4.9 (It should be the same in fsf gcc 4.9 branch)
>>> and the test cases is failing there.
>>> Did you verify the testcase fails before the revision that fixed it?
>>> Esp. the placement of the dg-bogus looks bogus to me.
>>
>> I tried it on Linaro 4.9 (It should be the same in fsf gcc 4.9 branch)
>> and the test cases is failing there. Passes on trunk.
>
> Well, it probably fails becau
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Kugan
wrote:
>
> On 11/08/14 18:03, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Kugan
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904
>>>
>>> Tescase was generating warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur
>>> whe
On 11/08/14 18:03, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Kugan
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904
>>
>> Tescase was generating warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur
>> when simplifying conditional to constant [-Wstrict-overflow]
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Kugan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904
>
> Tescase was generating warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur
> when simplifying conditional to constant [-Wstrict-overflow] due to VRP
> missing the value range.
>
> This seems
Hi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904
Tescase was generating warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur
when simplifying conditional to constant [-Wstrict-overflow] due to VRP
missing the value range.
This seems to have been fixed and the PR is now closed. However, as
requ
