On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 6:47 AM Jeffrey Law <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 1/13/2026 4:31 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 12:16 PM Daniel Barboza > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> During ML discussions of a match.pd pattern that was introducing a new > >> instance of 'warn_strict_overflow', Richard mentioned that this use > >> should be discouraged [1]. After pointing out that this usage was > >> documented in tree.h he then explained that we should remove the note > >> from the header [2]. Here's the reasoning: > >> > >> "Ah, we should remove that note. -Wstrict-overflow proved useless IMO, > >> it's way too noisy as it diagnoses when the compiler relies on overflow > >> not happening, not diagnosing when it possibly happens. That's not a > >> very useful diagnostic to have - it does not point to a possible problem > >> in the code (we could as well diagnose _all_ signed arithmetic > >> operations for the same argument that we might eventually rely on > >> overflow not happening)." > >> > >> Aside from removing the tree.h node we're also removing the 2 references > >> in match.pd. match.pd patterns tend to be copied around to serve as a > >> base for new patterns (like I did in [3] adding a > >> 'fold_overflow_warning'), and if we want to discourage the use avoiding > >> its spread is a good start. > >> > >> Note that there are a lot of references left, most of them in > >> gcc/fold-const.cc. Some references are using in nested helpers inside > >> the file, entangled with code that does other things. Removing all > >> references from the project is out of scope for this quick patch. > >> > >> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2026-January/705320.html > >> [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2026-January/705482.html > >> [3] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2026-January/704992.html > > OK. > I think it's time to get Daniel write-after-approval permissions so he > can commit stuff himself....
Agreed. > > jeff
