| Message ID | 4F7C0382.2080701@st.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Hi Christian, You have to add the testcases from both PR52283 and PR37985, and an appropriate Changelog, and bootstrap+regression test everything and double-check that the new testcases don't fail and no old testcases fail with the patch (by comparing with the testcases that fail without the patch). Cheers, Manuel. On 4 April 2012 10:17, Christian Bruel <christian.bruel@st.com> wrote: > Hello, > > Is it OK to push the cleaning of TREE_NO_WARNING to fix the constant > expressions errors discrepancies, as discussed in bugzilla #52283, now that > the trunk is open ? > > Many thanks, > > >
On 04/04/2012 11:38 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > Hi Christian, > > You have to add the testcases from both PR52283 and PR37985, and an > appropriate Changelog, and bootstrap+regression test everything and > double-check that the new testcases don't fail and no old testcases > fail with the patch (by comparing with the testcases that fail without > the patch). The testscase was part of the attached patch, along with the ChangeLog entries It was bootstrapped and regtested for C and C++ on x86 (that was in bugzilla comment #22), sorry I should have mentioned it here too. done now :) Cheers Christian > > Cheers, > > Manuel. > > On 4 April 2012 10:17, Christian Bruel<christian.bruel@st.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Is it OK to push the cleaning of TREE_NO_WARNING to fix the constant >> expressions errors discrepancies, as discussed in bugzilla #52283, now that >> the trunk is open ? >> >> Many thanks, >> >> >>
On 4 April 2012 13:05, Christian Bruel <christian.bruel@st.com> wrote: > > > The testscase was part of the attached patch, along with the ChangeLog > entries You are right! Sorry, I may have been looking at the wrong place. > It was bootstrapped and regtested for C and C++ on x86 (that was in bugzilla > comment #22), sorry I should have mentioned it here too. done now :) Thanks for taking care of this. Cheers, Manuel.
As far as I know, this patch hasn't been reviewed: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/150636/ Cheers, Manuel. On 4 April 2012 10:17, Christian Bruel <christian.bruel@st.com> wrote: > Hello, > > Is it OK to push the cleaning of TREE_NO_WARNING to fix the constant > expressions errors discrepancies, as discussed in bugzilla #52283, now that > the trunk is open ? > > Many thanks, > > >
2012-03-29 Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu@gcc.gnu.org> PR c/52283/37985 * stmt.c (warn_if_unused_value): Skip NOP_EXPR. * convert.c (convert_to_integer): Don't set TREE_NO_WARNING. 2010-03-29 Christian Bruel <christian.bruel@st.com> PR c/52283 * gcc.dg/case-const-1.c: Test constant expression. * gcc.dg/case-const-2.c: Likewise. * gcc.dg/case-const-3.c: Likewise. 2012-03-29 Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu@gcc.gnu.org> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr37985.c: New test. Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr37985.c =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr37985.c (revision 0) +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr37985.c (revision 0) @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ +/* PR c/37985 */ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-options " -Wall -Wextra " } */ +unsigned char foo(unsigned char a) +{ + a >> 2; /* { dg-warning "no effect" } */ + return a; +} Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/case-const-1.c =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/case-const-1.c (revision 186082) +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/case-const-1.c (working copy) @@ -1,9 +1,11 @@ /* Test for case labels not integer constant expressions but folding - to integer constants (used in Linux kernel, PR 39613). */ + to integer constants (used in Linux kernel, PR 39613, 52283). */ /* { dg-do compile } */ /* { dg-options "" } */ extern int i; +extern unsigned int u; + void f (int c) { @@ -13,3 +15,13 @@ ; } } + +void +b (int c) +{ + switch (c) + { + case (int) (2 | ((4 < 8) ? 8 : u)): + ; + } +} Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/case-const-2.c =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/case-const-2.c (revision 186082) +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/case-const-2.c (working copy) @@ -1,9 +1,11 @@ /* Test for case labels not integer constant expressions but folding - to integer constants (used in Linux kernel, PR 39613). */ + to integer constants (used in Linux kernel, PR 39613, 52283). */ /* { dg-do compile } */ /* { dg-options "-pedantic" } */ extern int i; +extern unsigned int u; + void f (int c) { @@ -13,3 +15,14 @@ ; } } + +void +b (int c) +{ + switch (c) + { + case (int) (2 | ((4 < 8) ? 8 : u)): /* { dg-warning "case label is not an integer constant expression" } */ + ; + } +} + Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/case-const-3.c =================================================================== --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/case-const-3.c (revision 186082) +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/case-const-3.c (working copy) @@ -1,9 +1,11 @@ /* Test for case labels not integer constant expressions but folding - to integer constants (used in Linux kernel, PR 39613). */ + to integer constants (used in Linux kernel, PR 39613, 52283, ). */ /* { dg-do compile } */ /* { dg-options "-pedantic-errors" } */ extern int i; +extern unsigned int u; + void f (int c) { @@ -13,3 +15,16 @@ ; } } + +void +b (int c) +{ + switch (c) + { + case (int) (2 | ((4 < 8) ? 8 : u)): /* { dg-error "case label is not an integer constant expression" } */ + ; + } +} + + + Index: gcc/stmt.c =================================================================== --- gcc/stmt.c (revision 186082) +++ gcc/stmt.c (working copy) @@ -1515,6 +1515,7 @@ case SAVE_EXPR: case NON_LVALUE_EXPR: + case NOP_EXPR: exp = TREE_OPERAND (exp, 0); goto restart; Index: gcc/convert.c =================================================================== --- gcc/convert.c (revision 186082) +++ gcc/convert.c (working copy) @@ -542,7 +542,6 @@ else if (outprec >= inprec) { enum tree_code code; - tree tem; /* If the precision of the EXPR's type is K bits and the destination mode has more bits, and the sign is changing, @@ -560,13 +559,7 @@ else code = NOP_EXPR; - tem = fold_unary (code, type, expr); - if (tem) - return tem; - - tem = build1 (code, type, expr); - TREE_NO_WARNING (tem) = 1; - return tem; + return fold_build1 (code, type, expr); } /* If TYPE is an enumeral type or a type with a precision less