http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43772
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-28 13:07:41 UTC --- (In reply to comment #15) > > No, there could be a warning that the first test is always false, another one > that the second one is always false, but adding a third warning that the > conjunction of the 2 is always false seems bogus. This warning is meant for: > x<5&&x>10, where each test independently could be true, just not both at the > same time. I understand now, and I think you are right. We don't have a warning for "((int)x) < INT_MIN" or ((int)x) > INT_MAX but I think it should go to Wtype-limits. Do you think we could test this situation just before the Wlogical-op warning? I can see that some macros may generate x >= INT_MIN but the x < INT_MIN case seems less likely to be intented and we should warn (and then return and avoid warning with Wlogical-op). I am sure there must be a way to test for "x < MIN_OF_TYPE_OF(x))" and "x > MAX_OF_TYPE_OF(x)" I just haven't investigated how.
