First, if there isn't a bug in Bugzilla for this problem please file one so it's properly tracked if it takes a while to work out how to solve it. As I understand it from your testcases, it's a matter of certain code that is not valid ISO C but you would like to be accepted unless -pedantic, by analogy with other such code that is accepted.
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Christian Bruel wrote: > What I'm unsure is why we couldn't have a TREE_NO_WARNING on a > !CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P. This seems necessary on some cases without using a > NOP_EXPR. Richard explained this. What is the code adding TREE_NO_WARNING in the first place (before folding) for your testcase? It may sometimes be safe to copy constants with copy_node to put TREE_NO_WARNING on the copies. But you'd still need to be careful because there are some tree-node-equality comparisons for constants, against truthvalue_true_node and truthvalue_false_node at least, so those might need to be relaxed a bit to allow any non-overflowed integer-type integer constant with the right value. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
