Re: [C PATCH] New -Woverflow option, pass OPT_Woverflow to warning.

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Roger Sayle <roger@eyesopen.com> writes:

| Hi Gaby,
| 
| Thanks for the review.
| 
| 
| On 1 May 2006, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > The patch is welcome in principle.  However, since we are supposed to
| > be in stage 3, my natural question is: does it fix a regression?  If
| > the answer is not, then please hold it for stage 1.
| 
| There are a number of TREE_OVERFLOW releated regressions, including
| some bad constant folding interactions in the Ada front-end, that
| Mark and I are hoping to fix for 4.2, by cleaning up TREE_OVERFLOW.
| It's because we're in stage3 that I'm trying to split this reorganization
| into a number of very safe incremental improvements.
| 
| See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-04/msg00889.html
| and http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-04/msg00008.html where it
| was agreed this is reasonable for stage3 provided I'm careful.

Thanks for showing those evidence -- obviously, I'm way behind GCC mails.

| > Is -Woverflow supposed to be actived by default, or part of -Wall?
| 
| The intention is for there to be no change of behaviour with this
| patch.  Currently we generate warnings unconditionally, so this
| patch preserves this functionality, and enables Woverflow by default.


Patch is OK.  Thanks for the clarifications.

-- Gaby