This fixes an integer overflow warning that ultimatively happens because
of TREE_OVERFLOW propagating through transforms and the existing guard
against this,
375 if (TREE_OVERFLOW_P (ret)
376 && !TREE_OVERFLOW_P (op0)
377 && !TREE_OVERFLOW_P (op1))
378 overflow_warning (EXPR_LOC_OR_LOC (expr, input_location,
being insufficient. Rather than trying to use sth like walk_tree to
exhaustively walk operands (with the possibility of introducing
quadraticness when folding larger expressions recursively) the
following amends the above with an ad-hoc test for a binary op0
with a possibly constant op1.
2020-05-30 Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
PR c/95141
gcc/c
* c-fold.c (c_fully_fold_internal): Enhance guard on
overflow_warning.
gcc/testsuite
* gcc.dg/pr95141.c: New testcase.
+2020-05-30 Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
+
+ PR c/95141
+ * c-fold.c (c_fully_fold_internal): Enhance guard on
+ overflow_warning.
+
2020-05-20 Kito Cheng <kito.cheng@sifive.com>
PR target/90811
ret = fold (expr);
if (TREE_OVERFLOW_P (ret)
&& !TREE_OVERFLOW_P (op0)
+ && !(BINARY_CLASS_P (op0) && TREE_OVERFLOW_P (TREE_OPERAND (op0, 1)))
&& !TREE_OVERFLOW_P (op1))
overflow_warning (EXPR_LOC_OR_LOC (expr, input_location), ret, expr);
if (code == LSHIFT_EXPR
+2020-05-30 Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
+
+ PR c/95141
+ * gcc.dg/pr95141.c: New testcase.
+
2020-05-19 Alex Coplan <alex.coplan@arm.com>
PR target/94591
--- /dev/null
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+
+#include <stdint.h>
+
+uint64_t test(uint8_t IA1)
+{
+ return (uint8_t)(IA1 & 158) & 1UL; /* { dg-bogus "integer overflow" } */
+}