PR tree-optimization/31602
* tree-ssa-loop-ch.c (copy_loop_headers): Set TREE_NO_WARNING for
conditionals in the copied loop header.
* tree-cfg.c (fold_cond_expr_cond): Don't issue undefined overflow
warnings if TREE_NO_WARNING is set.
* doc/invoke.texi (Warning Options): Clarify that
-Wstrict-overflow does not warn about loops.
testsuite/:
PR tree-optimization/31602
* gcc.dg/Wstrict-overflow-11.c: We no longer issue a warning.
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@124120
138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-
82ee72b054a4
+2007-04-24 Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
+
+ PR tree-optimization/31602
+ * tree-ssa-loop-ch.c (copy_loop_headers): Set TREE_NO_WARNING for
+ conditionals in the copied loop header.
+ * tree-cfg.c (fold_cond_expr_cond): Don't issue undefined overflow
+ warnings if TREE_NO_WARNING is set.
+ * doc/invoke.texi (Warning Options): Clarify that
+ -Wstrict-overflow does not warn about loops.
+
2007-04-24 Janis Johnson <janis187@us.ibm.com>
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (function_arg_advance): For 32-bit ELF ABI,
overflow never does, in fact, occur. Therefore this warning can
easily give a false positive: a warning about code which is not
actually a problem. To help focus on important issues, several
-warning levels are defined.
+warning levels are defined. No warnings are issued for the use of
+undefined signed overflow when estimating how many iterations a loop
+will require, in particular when determining whether a loop will be
+executed at all.
@table @option
@item -Wstrict-overflow=1
+2007-04-24 Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
+
+ PR tree-optimization/31602
+ * gcc.dg/Wstrict-overflow-11.c: We no longer issue a warning.
+
2007-04-24 Janis Johnson <janis187@us.ibm.com>
* gcc.target/powerpc/ppc32-abi-dfp-1.c: New test.
/* Based on strict-overflow-5.c. */
-/* We can only unroll when using strict overflow semantics. */
+/* We can only unroll when using strict overflow semantics. But we
+ don't issue a warning for relying on undefined overflow in
+ loops. */
int foo (int i)
{
int index;
int r=0;
- for (index = i; index <= i+4; index+=2) /* { dg-warning "assuming signed overflow does not occur" "correct warning" } */
+ for (index = i; index <= i+4; index+=2)
r++;
return r;
cond = fold (COND_EXPR_COND (stmt));
zerop = integer_zerop (cond);
onep = integer_onep (cond);
- fold_undefer_overflow_warnings (zerop || onep, stmt,
+ fold_undefer_overflow_warnings (((zerop || onep)
+ && !TREE_NO_WARNING (stmt)),
+ stmt,
WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_CONDITIONAL);
if (zerop)
COND_EXPR_COND (stmt) = boolean_false_node;
/* Loop header copying on trees.
- Copyright (C) 2004, 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+ Copyright (C) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This file is part of GCC.
continue;
}
+ /* If the loop has the form "for (i = j; i < j + 10; i++)" then
+ this copying can introduce a case where we rely on undefined
+ signed overflow to eliminate the preheader condition, because
+ we assume that "j < j + 10" is true. We don't want to warn
+ about that case for -Wstrict-overflow, because in general we
+ don't warn about overflow involving loops. Prevent the
+ warning by setting TREE_NO_WARNING. */
+ if (warn_strict_overflow > 0)
+ {
+ unsigned int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < n_bbs; ++i)
+ {
+ tree last;
+
+ last = last_stmt (copied_bbs[i]);
+ if (TREE_CODE (last) == COND_EXPR)
+ TREE_NO_WARNING (last) = 1;
+ }
+ }
+
/* Ensure that the latch and the preheader is simple (we know that they
are not now, since there was the loop exit condition. */
split_edge (loop_preheader_edge (loop));