Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 19/07/2005 12:58:23:
| Michael Veksler wrote:
| > This is problematic:
| > 1. I am not sure it will turn the warning off.
|
| So you don't want a warning that cannot be turned off simply by
| modifying the code.
Most of gcc warnings are like that: you can avoid a warning by
writing your code in a certain way. In most of the cases the
resulting code is clearer than what it would be without
warning avoiding maneuvers.
| Then, I withdraw the patch that I have proposed
| to implement the warning.
Wait not so fast.
1. I am no authority to block other people's enhancements.
This was not my intention.
2. Can't it be refined? Can't delay the warning to a
place where code depends on the VRP?
Example:
void foo (int N)
{
int i;
int A[123];
if (N > 123)
// Will it be eliminated by VRP ?
printf("N is too big, hope for the best\n");
for (i = 0; i < N; i++)
A[i] = ...
}
If VRP results in printf being eliminated, only then
should a warning be emitted.
Michael
