On Mon, 14 May 2012, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > PING: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg00383.html
The general idea of checking this information in shorten_compare seems reasonable. (shorten_compare's optimization function is one that really ought to be done in generic code, but the warning function is reasonable enough.) > And on a general note, what is the opinion of the C/C++ maintainers > about tracking the original source code more faithfully than currently > done? I consider it a good idea to do so - moving more to an explicit lowering step / conversion from front-end to middle-end internal representation. There are some places where c_fully_fold is called to avoid false positive warnings. A first approach for eliminating those would be to make the internal representation contain relevant information such as "this is an implicit conversion" so that the warnings can be generated later in c_fully_fold when it has the extra information from folding operands. Another possibility would be to have IR that says "give this warning, if this condition can occur", and options to evaluate the condition early (with predictability but false positives) or late (fewer false positives, less predictability). Or you could lower as needed but carry around both lowered and unlowered versions of an expression (so front-end IR would include a pointer to lowered IR if lowering has taken place on-demand). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
