On 12/19/2016 12:12 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 07:58:54PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:54:06AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
I don't claim it can't be improved but it seems pretty good as
it is already. Among the 6 instances it's found in GCC three
look like real bugs.
None look like real bugs to me.
But is the warning rate so high that we need to revert/reject the warning as
implemented. That's my question. 6 across GCC doesn't sound bad across a
multi-million line codebase.
It isn't 6 across GCC, it is 6 across a single target and single set of
compiler options. Other targets and other options have different sets,
there is some overlap, but only partial.
Unrelated to where the warning is issued, it might be a good idea to use
%K to emit it with inlining stack, otherwise figuring out why it warns
will be harder than needed.
I would think that would apply to any warning triggered once we've
started optimizing the code. Don't you?
jeff
