This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/22551] [4.0/4.1 Regression] [ICE] in tree_low_cst, at tree.c:3843
- From: "mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 16 Oct 2005 22:06:56 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/22551] [4.0/4.1 Regression] [ICE] in tree_low_cst, at tree.c:3843
- References: <bug-22551-11017@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #11 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 22:06 -------
The new switch2.C test is failing for me. In fact, I'm not sure why we should
see overflow warnings on these expressions; isn't "0x80000000" INT_MIN? In
that case, INT_MIN + 1 does not overflow, does it? The C front end in GCC
3.4.x does not warn about the equivalent C program.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22551