On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 09:14:46PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > remove_c_maybe_const_expr doesn't seem to be quite what you want. Apart
> > from this not being a case covered by the comment on the function, you're
> > ignoring the possibility of the
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 09:14:46PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> remove_c_maybe_const_expr doesn't seem to be quite what you want. Apart
> from this not being a case covered by the comment on the function, you're
> ignoring the possibility of the side effects in the
> C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPR_PRE. So
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Marek Polacek wrote:
> diff --git gcc/c/c-typeck.c gcc/c/c-typeck.c
> index c18c307..48c1a98 100644
> --- gcc/c/c-typeck.c
> +++ gcc/c/c-typeck.c
> @@ -3512,7 +3512,11 @@ parser_build_binary_op (location_t location, enum
> tree_code code,
> code1, arg
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 05:24:34PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> That seems to change the behaviour of the code though. Most of the code in
> warn_tautological_cmp only looks at the unfolded form. Are you sure this is
> safe, for example wrt. the from_macro_expansion_at tests or the
> CONVERT_EXPR_
On 11/18/2015 05:16 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
Actually, no, I think we should do this instead.
+++ gcc/c-family/c-common.c
@@ -1924,7 +1924,7 @@ warn_tautological_cmp (location_t loc, enum tree_code
code, tree lhs, tree rhs)
/* We do not warn for constants because they are typical of macro
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 05:03:48PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Since C++ delayed folding, warn_tautological_cmp needs to fold its arguments.
> But sometimes this function gets C_MAYBE_CONST_EXPR from the C FE, and fold()
> duly ICEs.
>
> I was torn if I should just return from warn_tautological_
