On Tue, 19 May 2020, Richard Biener wrote: > This fixes an integer overflow warning that ultimatively happens because > of TREE_OVERFLOW propagating through transforms and the existing guard > against this, > > 375 if (TREE_OVERFLOW_P (ret) > 376 && !TREE_OVERFLOW_P (op0) > 377 && !TREE_OVERFLOW_P (op1)) > 378 overflow_warning (EXPR_LOC_OR_LOC (expr, input_location, > > being insufficient. Rather than trying to use sth like walk_tree to > exhaustively walk operands (with the possibility of introducing > quadraticness when folding larger expressions recursively) the > following amends the above with an ad-hoc test for a binary op0 > with a possibly constant op1. > > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, OK?
OK. The test in bug 32643 looks vaguely similar, but that's an older regression, do I take it this patch doesn't help with that one? -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
