This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]

Re: [Bug tree-optimization/19723] [4.0 Regression] A side effect is missed in 0 % a++.


On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 08:45:34PM -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> +       /* X % 0, return X % 0 unchanged so that we can get the
> + 	 proper warnings and errors.  */
>         if (integer_zerop (arg1))
>   	return t;
>   
> +       /* 0 % X is always zero, but be sure to preserve any side
> + 	 effects in X.  Place this after checking for X == 0.  */
> +       if (integer_zerop (arg0))
> + 	return omit_one_operand (type, integer_zero_node, arg1);

Not ok yet.  You have to *know* that arg1 is not zero.  Otherwise
you're still potentially removing a division-by-zero.

The only check you have at this level for this is integer_nonzerop.



r~


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