[Bug middle-end/4210] should not warn in dead code

[egallager at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210

Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |egallager at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #40 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #39)
> I think these questions are more appropriate for the mailing list, since
> few people are subscribed to this bug.

There were more previously, but a lot of people got dropped from cc lists all
throughout bugzilla in the process of transferring servers... I was on this one
previously, for example, but now I'm having to re-subscribe... 

> 
> You can easily find which pass does something by dumping (-ftree-dump-*)
> all of them and comparing them.
> 
> On Wed, 6 May 2020, 09:11 nisse at lysator dot liu.se, <
> gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210
> >
> > --- Comment #38 from Niels Möller <nisse at lysator dot liu.se> ---
> > Just a brief update.
> >
> > 1. Tried adding fprintf warnings to c_gimplify_expr (btw, what's the right
> > way
> > to display a pretty warning with line numbers etc in later passes?). But it
> > seems that's too early, I still get warnings for dead code.
> >
> > 2. The pass_remove_useless_stmts, mentioned in the docs, was deleted in
> > 2009
> > (see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41573), and I take it
> > it was
> > obsoleted earlier, since there's no mention of a replacement. So what pass
> > should I look at that is related to basic control flow analysis, and
> > discarding
> > unreachable statements?
> >
> > --
> > You are receiving this mail because:
> > You are on the CC list for the bug.