2015-09-01 16:47 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com>: > On 08/31/2015 03:43 PM, Kai Tietz wrote: >> >> 2015-08-31 21:29 GMT+02:00 Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com>: >>> >>> On 08/31/2015 03:08 PM, Kai Tietz wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I will need to verify that this patch doesn't introduce regressions. >>>> The wacky thing here is the encapsulation of overflowed-arguments in >>>> maybe_constant_value function by nop-expr. >>> >>> >>> >>> Do we need to worry about that? If one of the operands is overflowed, we >>> don't care whether the result is overflowed. >> >> >> Well, we would introduce, if we don't see in condition that operand >> already overflowed, double overflow-warning, which seems to be >> something we avoided until now. So I would say, it matters. > > > I would rather handle this by checking whether the folded operands are > constant before even building the folded result.
I rewrote binary/unary overflow-check logic so, that we avoid double checking-s. I think this address things as you intend, beside the checking for constant value. We would need to check for *_CST tree-codes. Is there a macro we could use, which is just checking for those? > Jason > Kai
