https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
Bug 63510 depends on bug 63451, which changed state.
Bug 63451 Summary: bad location for the condition in for-loops
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63451
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
--- Comment #13 from Chen Gang ---
gcc version 6.0.0 20151023 (experimental) (GCC) has no this issue (I guess, the
reason is that it calls gimple_simplify instead of fold_binary).
For me, this issue can be closed.
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
--- Comment #12 from Chen Gang ---
The patch passes "make check". I guess, it should be OK.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
--- Comment #11 from Chen Gang ---
Created attachment 36267
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36267&action=edit
The related fix patch for it.
The related fix patch for it: current input_location isn't precise for
reporting war
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
--- Comment #10 from Chen Gang ---
Need use gimple_location(stmt) for it. The stmt is the variable in
gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c before call fold_binary(). But unlucky, it is not passed
into fold_binary(), we can not get it directly.
After try a tempo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
--- Comment #9 from Chen Gang ---
We need call warning_at() instead of warnings() in fold_overflow_warning() in
gcc/fold-const.c.
The related location parameter of warning_at() should be calculated, just like
another gcc files has done: e.g. gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
--- Comment #8 from Chen Gang ---
For the latest gcc, it still has this issue, I shall try to fix it during these
days (hope can fix it within this month).
Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
--- Comment #7 from xili_gchen_5257 at hotmail dot com ---
On 8/5/15 00:45, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
>
> --- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
> (In reply to Iain Buclaw from comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #5)
> I can still reproduce the wrong-line diagnostic using gcc (GCC) 6.0.0
> 20150720 (experimental).
>
> However GDB has been building just fine for a while now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
--- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw ---
I can still reproduce the wrong-line diagnostic using gcc (GCC) 6.0.0 20150720
(experimental).
However GDB has been building just fine for a while now. But I don't know if
that is due to a change on GCC or GD
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
--- Comment #4 from Chen Gang ---
For gcc version 5.0.0 20150109 (experimental) (GCC), can not find this warnings
again.
So at present, for me, this bug can be closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
--- Comment #3 from Chen Gang ---
It still exists in gcc version 5.0.0 20141109 (experimental) (GCC), I shall try
to solve it.
Hope I can finish within 2 months.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
14 matches
Mail list logo
