From: Bob Duff Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 12:08:58 +0000 (-0400) Subject: [Ada] Suppress warnings on membership test of ranges X-Git-Url: http://review.tizen.org/git/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=3cd52053f80846df2ea22e3fff059ebc094e649b;p=platform%2Fupstream%2Fgcc.git [Ada] Suppress warnings on membership test of ranges For a membership test "X in A .. B", the compiler used to warn if it could prove that X is within one of the bounds. For example, if we know at compile time that X >= A, then the above could be replaced by "X <= B". This patch suppresses that warning, because there is really nothing wrong with the membership test, and programmers sometimes find it annoying. gcc/ada/ * exp_ch4.adb (Expand_N_In): Do not warn in the above-mentioned cases. * fe.h (Assume_No_Invalid_Values): Remove from fe.h, because this is not used in gigi. * opt.ads (Assume_No_Invalid_Values): Improve the comment. We don't need to "clearly prove"; we can just "prove". Remove the comment about fe.h, which is no longer true. --- diff --git a/gcc/ada/exp_ch4.adb b/gcc/ada/exp_ch4.adb index 75f0e56..3b4d521 100644 --- a/gcc/ada/exp_ch4.adb +++ b/gcc/ada/exp_ch4.adb @@ -6388,7 +6388,7 @@ package body Exp_Ch4 is Lcheck : Compare_Result; Ucheck : Compare_Result; - Warn1 : constant Boolean := + Warn : constant Boolean := Constant_Condition_Warnings and then Comes_From_Source (N) and then not In_Instance; @@ -6397,16 +6397,6 @@ package body Exp_Ch4 is -- also skip these warnings in an instance since it may be the -- case that different instantiations have different ranges. - Warn2 : constant Boolean := - Warn1 - and then Nkind (Original_Node (Rop)) = N_Range - and then Is_Integer_Type (Etype (Lo)); - -- For the case where only one bound warning is elided, we also - -- insist on an explicit range and an integer type. The reason is - -- that the use of enumeration ranges including an end point is - -- common, as is the use of a subtype name, one of whose bounds is - -- the same as the type of the expression. - begin -- If test is explicit x'First .. x'Last, replace by valid check @@ -6491,7 +6481,7 @@ package body Exp_Ch4 is -- legality checks, because we are constant-folding beyond RM 4.9. if Lcheck = LT or else Ucheck = GT then - if Warn1 then + if Warn then Error_Msg_N ("?c?range test optimized away", N); Error_Msg_N ("\?c?value is known to be out of range", N); end if; @@ -6505,7 +6495,7 @@ package body Exp_Ch4 is -- since we know we are in range. elsif Lcheck in Compare_GE and then Ucheck in Compare_LE then - if Warn1 then + if Warn then Error_Msg_N ("?c?range test optimized away", N); Error_Msg_N ("\?c?value is known to be in range", N); end if; @@ -6520,11 +6510,6 @@ package body Exp_Ch4 is -- a comparison against the upper bound. elsif Lcheck in Compare_GE then - if Warn2 and then not In_Instance then - Error_Msg_N ("??lower bound test optimized away", Lo); - Error_Msg_N ("\??value is known to be in range", Lo); - end if; - Rewrite (N, Make_Op_Le (Loc, Left_Opnd => Lop, @@ -6532,16 +6517,9 @@ package body Exp_Ch4 is Analyze_And_Resolve (N, Restyp); goto Leave; - -- If upper bound check succeeds and lower bound check is not - -- known to succeed or fail, then replace the range check with - -- a comparison against the lower bound. + -- Inverse of previous case. elsif Ucheck in Compare_LE then - if Warn2 and then not In_Instance then - Error_Msg_N ("??upper bound test optimized away", Hi); - Error_Msg_N ("\??value is known to be in range", Hi); - end if; - Rewrite (N, Make_Op_Ge (Loc, Left_Opnd => Lop, @@ -6555,7 +6533,7 @@ package body Exp_Ch4 is -- see if we can determine the outcome assuming everything is -- valid, and if so give an appropriate warning. - if Warn1 and then not Assume_No_Invalid_Values then + if Warn and then not Assume_No_Invalid_Values then Lcheck := Compile_Time_Compare (Lop, Lo, Assume_Valid => True); Ucheck := Compile_Time_Compare (Lop, Hi, Assume_Valid => True); @@ -6570,18 +6548,6 @@ package body Exp_Ch4 is elsif Lcheck in Compare_GE and then Ucheck in Compare_LE then Error_Msg_N ("?c?value can only be out of range if it is invalid", N); - - -- Lower bound check succeeds if value is valid - - elsif Warn2 and then Lcheck in Compare_GE then - Error_Msg_N - ("?c?lower bound check only fails if it is invalid", Lo); - - -- Upper bound check succeeds if value is valid - - elsif Warn2 and then Ucheck in Compare_LE then - Error_Msg_N - ("?c?upper bound check only fails for invalid values", Hi); end if; end if; end; diff --git a/gcc/ada/fe.h b/gcc/ada/fe.h index bfd9054..1048465 100644 --- a/gcc/ada/fe.h +++ b/gcc/ada/fe.h @@ -203,7 +203,6 @@ extern Boolean In_Extended_Main_Code_Unit (Entity_Id); /* opt: */ #define Ada_Version opt__ada_version -#define Assume_No_Invalid_Values opt__assume_no_invalid_values #define Back_End_Inlining opt__back_end_inlining #define Debug_Generated_Code opt__debug_generated_code #define Enable_128bit_Types opt__enable_128bit_types @@ -220,7 +219,6 @@ typedef enum { } Ada_Version_Type; extern Ada_Version_Type Ada_Version; -extern Boolean Assume_No_Invalid_Values; extern Boolean Back_End_Inlining; extern Boolean Debug_Generated_Code; extern Boolean Enable_128bit_Types; diff --git a/gcc/ada/opt.ads b/gcc/ada/opt.ads index c2abbce..0490895 100644 --- a/gcc/ada/opt.ads +++ b/gcc/ada/opt.ads @@ -186,12 +186,9 @@ package Opt is Assume_No_Invalid_Values : Boolean := False; -- GNAT Normally, in accordance with (RM 13.9.1 (9-11)) the front end -- assumes that values could have invalid representations, unless it can - -- clearly prove that the values are valid. If this switch is set (by + -- prove that the values are valid. If this switch is set (by -gnatB or -- pragma Assume_No_Invalid_Values (On)), then the compiler assumes values - -- are valid and in range of their representations. This feature is now - -- fully enabled in the compiler. - - -- WARNING: There is a matching C declaration of this variable in fe.h + -- are valid and in range of their representations. Back_Annotate_Rep_Info : Boolean := False; -- GNAT