On 1/9/2026 10:44 AM, Jeffrey Law wrote:
On 1/9/2026 12:24 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Please don't any new fold_overflow_warning things, those are borderly
useless (IMO all of them should be wiped).
No comments on the rest, I didn't review the discussion.
Blame me for that. I saw a note somewhere in our docs that made me
believe it was a requirement for these kinds of cases. It's certainly
simpler if we don't have to do that!
The note is on the docs of the macro in gcc/tree.h:
/* True if overflow is undefined for the given integral or pointer type.
We may optimize on the assumption that values in the type never
overflow.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Any optimization based on TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED
must issue a warning based on warn_strict_overflow. In some cases
it will be appropriate to issue the warning immediately, and in
other cases it will be appropriate to simply set a flag and let the
caller decide whether a warning is appropriate or not. */
#define TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED(TYPE) \
Daniel
jeff
