This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug c/69972] duplicate integer overflow diagnostic in constant expressions


https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69972

Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |manu at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #4 from Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Bernd Schmidt from comment #3)
> For C I'm thinking it should be straightforward to set/check TREE_NO_WARNING
> (I have an untested patch).

The duplicate warning shows that we are doing two times the same work. Wouldn't
it be better to avoid that?

> For the C++ testcase the problem is that the first one is a warning, while
> the second one is an error - we can't really omit that.

The C/C++ FEs share almost no code in this respect. It doesn't make sense to
keep both issues conflated. C++ bug is now PR70057.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]