On 3/7/21 2:04 PM, Alexander Motzkau via Gcc-help wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: >> -Wstrict-overflow=2 triggers when GCC encounters expressions that >> reduce to a constant, where that evaluation depends on overflow not >> occuring. In this case the expression is >> >> expbuf + 120 > get_buf() > > If this is the case It is. I've looked. > I can see the merit of the warning, because that can be reduced to > 120 > 0, which is a constant. But my problem ist, that I don't see > where this expression comes from? Surely you can imagine some kinds of loop transformation that might result in such an expression. -fdump-tree-all might help you. It won't tell you everything, because sometimes expressions are generated during an optimization pass and deleted before the dump. But it might help you to understand the kinds of transformation that GCC does. > The condition in question is > > argptr >= endbuf > > which can be written as > > expbuf + i >= expbuf + 120 > > which can be reduced to > > i >= 120 > > which is not a constant, and therefore not a cause for this warning. > > This could get constant if gcc does some loop unrolling, for the > first loop this would result in the expression you quoted. But then > I would have hoped that gcc doesn't warn about constants or dead > code when unrolling a loop, because they naturally happen then. GCC warns when it encounters such an expression when optimizing. GCC does not distinguish between user-written expressions and internally-generated ones. > And I can't do anything against it except unrolling manually and > this would make it less readable. That's right, you can't. >> I doubt that it ever was. -Wstrict-overflow=2 is informative, for >> the programmer. It doesn't suggest that anything is questionable >> about the program, and in this case it's difficult or impossible to >> avoid. > > If an originally non-constant if-expression is reduced to a constant > one that is for me something to worry about, where a warning/error > is appropriate. It means that the following block is always or never > executed, something the programmer usually didn't intend, otherwise > he wouldn't have written the if-condition. > > And this reduction to a constant is what differentiates > -Wstrict-overflow=2 from -Wstrict-overflow=3 (according to gcc's > documentation). For the later I would accept your description as it > being purely informative. Sure, but I'm telling you what is. >> Re upgrading: over time, GCC gets better and better at diagnosing and >> providing information. This inevitably means that programmers using >> -Werror with high levels of warnings have to change their programs >> when a new GCC is used. > > I understand and I welcome better analysis and optimization > techniques. And I changed several parts due to new warnings. But in > this case I don't see any possibility that wouldn't make the code > worse except deactivating the warning. Which is sad and normally > beside the point of a warning. Not all warnings indicate things that should be changed. We expect higher levels of warnings to cause false positives, many of which can't be avoided, which is why such warnings are not included in -Wall. -- Andrew Haley (he/him) Java Platform Lead Engineer Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com> https://keybase.io/andrewhaley EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671
