On 26-07-2011 16:43, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
int f (int i) { return abs (i) < 0; }
with -O2 -Wstrict-overflow I see this warning: foo.c:2: warning:
assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying comparison of
absolute value and zero So I think the compiler does warn about
optimizing that comparison away.
You are right. I used -Wall. Unfortunately, -Wall sets
-Wstrict-overflow=1 and you need |-Wstrict-overflow=2 to catch the abs
example. Too bad that you can't even rely on -Wall to catch such a
serious problem. I don't see why a+1<a = false should have a different
warning level from abs(a)<0 = false.
I think that there is a big difference between optimizing a loop with an
induction variable, as you mention, and optimizing away a branch. In a
simple for-loop with i++, it is unlikely that the programmer intended
any wrap-around. But if there is a branch or loop that can be optimized
away completely, then it is either violating the programmer's intentions
or the programmer has made a logical error. A warning would be in place
in either case. In other words, there is a difference between (1)
"ignoring overflow allows us to optimize an arithmetic expression or an
induction variable", and (2) "ignoring overflow allows us to optimize
away a branch". The latter situation should be regarded as more serious
and therefore give a warning at a lower warning-level. Then we would be
more likely to catch the situation where an intended overflow check is
optimized away. I wonder if it is possible to make such a distinction in
the compiler?
|
