[Bug tree-optimization/49234] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] -Wstrict-overflow gives obviously unwarranted warning

[rguenther at suse dot de]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49234

--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2013-03-07 08:36:43 UTC ---
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49234
> 
> --- Comment #20 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-06 16:28:12 UTC ---
> Oh, no worries Ian.  I totally agree.  I just wanted to put all this out there,
> since I'm unfortunately about to drop it.
> 
> We should probably close this as a WONTFIX, or perhaps just drop this in
> priority.  A false positive is not the end of the world, so I don't see how
> this merits a P2 for the release.
> 
> Thoughts?

I'd say we just give up here due to the fact that propagation in
SSA / CFG cycles is imprecise and that it is thus not possible
to avoid either false positives or false negatives.

A P2 regression isn't so bad, we have tons of those.