This is the mail archive of the 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: PR c/51712 -Wtype-limits should not trigger for types of implementation-defined signedness

On 1 May 2012 16:00, Joseph S. Myers <> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2012, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> > Are you sure you want STRIP_NOPS rather than STRIP_SIGN_NOPS here? ?If so,
>> > could you ensure there are comments explaining why removing sign changes
>> > is safe in this context?
>> For getting the original enumeral type of a expr, why would sign changes matter?
> What if the comparison is
> ?(unsigned) (expr_of_signed_enum_type) >= 0
> ? ?(With GCC, the enum will have a signed type if one of its values is
> negative.) ?That seems worth a warning - the point of the patch as I
> understand it is to avoid warning for

What I understood from the PR is that we should never warn for enums.
But if you think we should warn for the above, using STRIPS_SIGN_NOPS
does warn for this and avoids the warning in the original testcase. Is
this version OK?

 +/* Given an expression as a tree, return its original type.  Do this
+   by stripping any conversion that generates no instruction but don't
+   let the signedness change.  */
+static tree
+expr_original_type (tree expr)
+  STRIP_SIGN_NOPS (expr);
+  return TREE_TYPE (expr);

(The important and hard to fix case is anyway to not warn for >= FOO,
which triggers more often and it is even more annoying and it is also
the one that Clang fixes and not this one.)



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