This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@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: question about -Werror=strict-overflow

From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
To: JÄdrzej Dudkiewicz <jedrzej dot dudkiewicz at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-help <gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 17:12:08 -0700
Subject: Re: question about -Werror=strict-overflow
References: <BANLkTikqqEOHOsmTRFQRubzLWQMi-tkuOg@mail.gmail.com> <mcr8vu5z964.fsf@coign.corp.google.com> <BANLkTimnbzkMXu1+-sm=p1cR2KW7i84DBA@mail.gmail.com>

JÄdrzej Dudkiewicz <jedrzej.dudkiewicz@gmail.com> writes:

> It's very strange - in whole function (300 lines, yay), this variable is used:
> 1) to store return values from different functions, all of them
> returning signed integers
> 2) for comparison with different values defined in a manner similar to
> SSLSOCK_S_SUCCED mentioned above.
>
> There are no arithmetic, logical or bit operations involving this
> variable. It's completely beyond me, why would gcc change this to a
> constant.

Consider function inlining.

Ian

References:
- question about -Werror=strict-overflow
  - From: JÄdrzej Dudkiewicz
- Re: question about -Werror=strict-overflow
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: question about -Werror=strict-overflow
  - From: JÄdrzej Dudkiewicz

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