On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
| So the warning turned out to be useful or still was it too noisy ?
It is still noisy.
The limit macro fixes does not magically turn off the signed -> unsigned
noise -- it fixed a warning about overflow.
I'll send a separate message for the signed
So the warning turned out to be useful or still was it too noisy ?
Sorry, I am not perfectly following this discussion.
Cheers,
Manuel
On 15 Jan 2007 19:16:23 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Therefore, I'd like to apply to mainlin
Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Therefore, I'd like to apply to mainline the below (finishing testing
> on x86-linux), can you check it?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Paolo.
>
> /
> 2007-01-15 Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| Therefore, I'd like to apply to mainline the below (finishing testing on
| x86-linux), can you check it?|
it is troublesome that we have managed to duplicate the same construct
twice.
Yes, I guess Benjamin may clean-up that stuff further, it belongs to
ext/pb_ds. T
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Paolo Carlini wrote:
| Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
[...]
Thanks. That escaped me because those bits were contributed by
knowledgeable GCC contributors, so I trusted them :-)
|
| >One way to write this expression in a fully defined manner is:
| >(T)1 << 30) - 1) << 1) +
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
One way to write this expression in a fully defined manner is:
(T)1 << 30) - 1) << 1) + 1)
Thanks Ian.
Therefore, I'd like to apply to mainline the below (finishing testing on
x86-linux), can you check it?
Thanks in advance,
Paolo.
/
2007-01-15
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | >Specifically, for PR 30465 "((T)1 << 31) - 1" is potentially undefined
> | >when T is a 32-bit signed type, but well-defined if T is unsigned or
> | >wider than 32-bits.
> | >
> | FYI: this
Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| >Specifically, for PR 30465 "((T)1 << 31) - 1" is potentially undefined
| >when T is a 32-bit signed type, but well-defined if T is unsigned or
| >wider than 32-bits.
| >
| FYI: this specific issue arises from std::numeric_limits on
| x86-linux:
Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
|
| >> Sorry, please disregard my message: I was inadvertently using an old
| >> compiler (2007-01-06)
| >
| > So now you are getting both warning messages?
|
| Definitely I'm getting both:
|
| warning.cc: In function 'int m
On 15/01/07, Roger Sayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The second issue is that there are two different overflow related
warnings. The first warning indicates that an overflow has occurred in an
expression, and the second is that the overflowed result is used in a
context required
to be a compile
Hi Roger
and thanks for your explanations. Just a couple of additional remarks.
I agree with Paolo that this is a change for C++, and should at least be
documented in changes.html, and probably be tweaked to avoid warning in
system headers.
Note that, AFAICS, the issue would boil down to fix
Hi Manuel and Paolo,
On Sun, January 14, 2007 3:59 pm, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>> By the way, "new" also wrt current 4_2-branch, in the sense that the
>>> latter doesn't emit *any* overflow warning for the snippet in 30465,
>>> with explicit -Wconversion too...
I think I can explain everything. T
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
By the way, "new" also wrt current 4_2-branch, in the sense that the
latter doesn't emit *any* overflow warning for the snippet in 30465,
with explicit -Wconversion too...
And it does with Wconversion? Wconversion should not emit any overflow
warning, that is respons
On 14/01/07, Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> New? Woverflow is not new, as far as I know, if was just a bit broken,
>> especially in C++. But in these cases in particular, nothing should
>> have changed since we branched 4.2.
>
> Well, certainly new wrt 4_1-branc
Paolo Carlini wrote:
New? Woverflow is not new, as far as I know, if was just a bit broken,
especially in C++. But in these cases in particular, nothing should
have changed since we branched 4.2.
Well, certainly new wrt 4_1-branch, the last release branch...
By the way, "new" also wrt curren
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Sure. In fact, I was scratching my head about that. To be honest, I'm
still not completely acquainted with the new warning (and I'm
particularly interested because -Wsystem-headers triggers quite a few
from the library...)
New? Woverflow is not new, as far as I know,
On 14/01/07, Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> You are getting two overflow warnings for the same expression? That
> should not happen (TM). The TREE_OVERFLOW bit should have been noticed
> and prevent giving another warning. Roger, do you agree on this?
>
> P
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
You are getting two overflow warnings for the same expression? That
should not happen (TM). The TREE_OVERFLOW bit should have been noticed
and prevent giving another warning. Roger, do you agree on this?
Paolo, would you mind opening a bug report for this? I will look
On 14/01/07, Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
> So now you are getting both warning messages?
Definitely I'm getting both:
warning.cc: In function 'int main()':
warning.cc:3: warning: integer overflow in expression
warning.cc:3: warning: overflow in implici
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Sorry, please disregard my message: I was inadvertently using an old
compiler (2007-01-06)
So now you are getting both warning messages?
Definitely I'm getting both:
warning.cc: In function 'int main()':
warning.cc:3: warning: integer overflow in expression
warnin
On 14/01/07, Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paolo Carlini wrote:
> In particular, what's the difference between line 3 and line 4? ...
Sorry, please disregard my message: I was inadvertently using an old
compiler (2007-01-06)
So now you are getting both warning messages?
I don't u
Paolo Carlini wrote:
In particular, what's the difference between line 3 and line 4? ...
Sorry, please disregard my message: I was inadvertently using an old
compiler (2007-01-06)
Paolo.
Hi,
i'd like to ask the help of the list in clarifying a new warning in
mainline. Let's assume x86-linux (so 32-bits, signed wchar_t, etc...)
For this snipped I get a new warning:
int main()
{
wchar_t wc = ((wchar_t)1 << 31) - 1;
return ((int)1 << 31) - 1;
}
warning.cc:3: warning: overfl
23 matches
Mail list logo
