This patch introduced a new testsuite failure:
FAIL: g++.dg/warn/Wduplicated-branches1.C -std=gnu++98 (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/nasfarm/edelsohn/src/src/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wduplicated-branches1.C:9:3:
warning: this condition has identical branches [-Wduplicated-branches]
/n
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:05:22AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> This patch introduced a new testsuite failure:
>
> FAIL: g++.dg/warn/Wduplicated-branches1.C -std=gnu++98 (test for excess
> errors)
> Excess errors:
> /nasfarm/edelsohn/src/src/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wduplicated-branches1.C:9:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:32:59PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> s/indentical/identical in the doc/invoke.texi changes.
Fixed.
> > diff --git gcc/c/c-typeck.c gcc/c/c-typeck.c
> > index 96e7351..ed8ffe4 100644
> > --- gcc/c/c-typeck.c
> > +++ gcc/c/c-typeck.c
> > @@ -5193,6 +5193,15 @@ build_conditio
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 05:52:14PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > I agree that not warning for
> > if (foo)
> > return NULL;
> > else
> > return NULL;
> > is bad. But how can I compare those expressions side-by-side? I'm not
> > finding
> > anything. :(
>
> Seems like ENOTIME to a
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 02:39:30PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 12:18:01PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 10:21:47AM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > +/* Callback function to determine whether an expression TP or one of its
> > > + subexpressions
On 01/09/2017 02:21 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 04:41:28PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 04:39:40PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
Coming back to this...
Right, after h0 == h1 is missing && operand_equal_p (thenb, elseb, 0)
or so (the exact last operan
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 12:18:01PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 10:21:47AM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > +/* Callback function to determine whether an expression TP or one of its
> > + subexpressions comes from macro expansion. Used to suppress bogus
> > + warnings.
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 10:21:47AM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> +/* Callback function to determine whether an expression TP or one of its
> + subexpressions comes from macro expansion. Used to suppress bogus
> + warnings. */
> +
> +static tree
> +expr_from_macro_expansion_r (tree *tp, int *,
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:57:48AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 04:41:28PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 04:39:40PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > Coming back to this...
> > >
> > > > > Right
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 04:41:28PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 04:39:40PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > Coming back to this...
> >
> > > > Right, after h0 == h1 is missing && operand_equal_p (thenb, elseb, 0)
> > > > or so
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 04:41:28PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 04:39:40PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Coming back to this...
>
> > > Right, after h0 == h1 is missing && operand_equal_p (thenb, elseb, 0)
> > > or so (the exact last operand needs to be figured out).
> >
On January 5, 2017 4:41:28 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 04:39:40PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> Coming back to this...
>
>> > Right, after h0 == h1 is missing && operand_equal_p (thenb, elseb,
>0)
>> > or so (the exact last operand needs to be figured out).
>> > OE
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 04:39:40PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Coming back to this...
> > Right, after h0 == h1 is missing && operand_equal_p (thenb, elseb, 0)
> > or so (the exact last operand needs to be figured out).
> > OEP_ONLY_CONST is certainly wrong, we want the same VAR_DECLs to mean th
Coming back to this...
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 02:38:50PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:27:55AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 02:53:58PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Nov 0
On 11/3/16, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:27:55AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 02:53:58PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 09:41:20AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> >>
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:27:55AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 02:53:58PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 09:41:20AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Marek
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 02:53:58PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 09:41:20AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:10:21PM +0200, Marek
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 02:53:58PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 09:41:20AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:10:21PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:28:36PM +
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 09:41:20AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:10:21PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:28:36PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >> > I found a problem with this patch--we
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:10:21PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:28:36PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> > I found a problem with this patch--we can't call
>> > do_warn_duplicated_branches in
>> > build_conditional
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:10:21PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:28:36PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > I found a problem with this patch--we can't call
> > do_warn_duplicated_branches in
> > build_conditional_expr, because that way the C++-specific codes might leak
>
On 10/24/2016 08:44 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:39:20PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:34:40PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 08:18:25AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
The case above is just a case where with -O GCC can figure ou
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:39:20PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:34:40PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 08:18:25AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > > The case above is just a case where with -O GCC can figure out what the
> > > > value
> > > > of
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:34:40PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 08:18:25AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > The case above is just a case where with -O GCC can figure out what the
> > > value
> > > of a const-qualified variable is, see
> > > decl_constant_value_for_optimi
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 08:18:25AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > The case above is just a case where with -O GCC can figure out what the
> > value
> > of a const-qualified variable is, see decl_constant_value_for_optimization.
> > Since the warning is implemented even before gimplifying, optimiza
On 10/24/2016 07:59 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 02:21:42PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
--- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wduplicated-branches-1.c
+++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wduplicated-branches-1.c
@@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
+/* PR c/64279 */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:28:36PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> I found a problem with this patch--we can't call do_warn_duplicated_branches
> in
> build_conditional_expr, because that way the C++-specific codes might leak
> into
> the hasher. Instead, I should use operand_equal_p, I think. Le
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:56:12PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/20/2016 08:37 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 16:24 +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:11:55AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Marek Polacek
> > > > w
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 02:21:42PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > --- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wduplicated-branches-1.c
> > +++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wduplicated-branches-1.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
> > +/* PR c/64279 */
> > +/* { dg-do compile } */
> > +/* { dg-options "-Wduplicated-branches
--- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wduplicated-branches-1.c
+++ gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/Wduplicated-branches-1.c
@@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
+/* PR c/64279 */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "-Wduplicated-branches -O2" } */
+
+extern void foo (int);
+extern int g;
+extern int a[10];
+
+int
+f (int
On 10/20/2016 08:37 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 16:24 +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:11:55AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Marek Polacek
wrote:
But since integer csts and various decls
don't carry location info, this wo
On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 16:24 +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:11:55AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Marek Polacek
> > wrote:
> > > But since integer csts and various decls
> > > don't carry location info, this works only partially, so the
>
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:11:55AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > But since integer csts and various decls
> > don't carry location info, this works only partially, so the warning
> > warns even for e.g.
> >
> > if (TREE_STATIC (node) || D
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> But since integer csts and various decls
> don't carry location info, this works only partially, so the warning
> warns even for e.g.
>
> if (TREE_STATIC (node) || DECL_EXTERNAL (node))
> max_align = MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT;
> else
>
I found a problem with this patch--we can't call do_warn_duplicated_branches in
build_conditional_expr, because that way the C++-specific codes might leak into
the hasher. Instead, I should use operand_equal_p, I think. Let me rework
that part of the patch.
Marek
35 matches
Mail list logo
