From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#43725: 28.0.50; Include feature/native-comp into master Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:59:40 +0200 Message-ID: <83a6s02jdv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87wny8xwcc.fsf@gnus.org> <83im9sqk1b.fsf@gnu.org> <83v9drp8va.fsf@gnu.org> <831rdjd95w.fsf@gnu.org> <83im6o2n67.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="792"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, pipcet@gmail.com, 43725@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Andrea Corallo Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 19 16:44:41 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lD7xR-000057-0a for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:44:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39528 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lD7xQ-0006On-19 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:44:40 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37434) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lD7GF-0002sX-Ey for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:00:07 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:38542) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lD7GE-0000Qd-9B for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:00:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lD7GE-0003nH-6Y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:00:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 15:00:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 43725 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 43725-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B43725.161374677514520 (code B ref 43725); Fri, 19 Feb 2021 15:00:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 43725) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Feb 2021 14:59:35 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50088 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lD7Fn-0003m7-HT for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 09:59:35 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47632) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lD7Fl-0003ls-M4 for 43725@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 09:59:34 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:50110) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lD7Fd-0000DR-CU; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 09:59:25 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:3282 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lD7Fb-0003Tc-Sx; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 09:59:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Andrea Corallo on Fri, 19 Feb 2021 14:35:43 +0000) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:200349 Archived-At: > From: Andrea Corallo > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 43725@debbugs.gnu.org, larsi@gnus.org, > Stefan Monnier > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 14:35:43 +0000 > > >> > No, I think it tries to say that val is always either greater than > >> > LONG_MAX or smaller than LONG_MIN. > >> > >> Exactly, the warning is about the fact that all the other conditions > >> will never be evaluated. The phrasing is admittedly quite cryptic tho. > > > > I thought you said this was a setup where the argument _does_ fit a long? > > There we are dispatching if 'val' can be expressed or not with a long. > > 'val' is an EMACS_INT so depending on the configuration it might fit in > a long by definition, when this happen GCC sees the first condition in > or as always true etc etc... :) The condition would be always true if it were written like this: if (val >= LONG_MIN && val <= LONG_MAX) But that wasn't what the code was saying, it was the exact opposite of this condition. So I think GCC was actually complaining about the 'else' clause.