I will soon commit a patch that breaks (and xfails) gcc.dg/Wstrict-overflow-18.c, see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-04/msg00986.html. As asked by Martin, this PR is here to track this regression.
Most likely this will be solved by Richard (or someone else) killing -Wstrict-overflow.
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #0)
> I will soon commit a patch that breaks (and xfails)
> gcc.dg/Wstrict-overflow-18.c, see
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-04/msg00986.html. As asked by
> Martin, this PR is here to track this regression.
> Most likely this will be solved by Richard (or someone else) killing
Confirmed, although my preferred fix would be to keep and improve -Wstrict-overflow instead of killing it completely.
2 more testcases got xfailed: gcc.dg/Wstrict-overflow-7.c and gcc.dg/pragma-diag-3.c.
- add the warning in match.pd: users keep complaining about those strict-overflow warnings, so we would have to take it out of Wall.
- add the warning in match.pd, restricted to GENERIC: that gets us close to the gcc-7 situation.
- reimplement the warning in the front-end. In general, telling users that we simplified x+1<x to false is an optimization note, not a valid warning (it happens in perfectly fine code where we don't have any easy workaround). However, when the user literally writes x+1<x, that does deserve a warning. This would likely miss a lot of errors we currently notice, but that's unavoidable.
GCC 8.1 has been released.
GCC 8.2 has been released.
GCC 8.3 has been released.
GCC 8.4.0 has been released, adjusting target milestone.