From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Problem report #8 FALSE Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:19:36 +0900 Message-ID: References: <200604100955.k3A9t1cP028530@coolsville.localdomain> Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1144664400 29672 80.91.229.2 (10 Apr 2006 10:20:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:20:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 10 12:19:58 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FStUx-0006SW-2s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:19:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FStUw-0005Zy-G9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 06:19:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FStUk-0005Zj-A1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 06:19:42 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FStUi-0005ZF-7C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 06:19:41 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FStUh-0005ZA-Vs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 06:19:40 -0400 Original-Received: from [203.180.232.83] (helo=mgate03.necel.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FStZI-0004BW-VK; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 06:24:25 -0400 Original-Received: from relay21.aps.necel.com (relay21 [10.29.19.50]) by mgate03.necel.com (8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k3A8ws5d020707; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:19:36 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from relay11.aps.necel.com ([10.29.19.16] [10.29.19.16]) by relay21.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:19:36 +0900 Original-Received: from dhapc248.dev.necel.com ([10.114.97.235] [10.114.97.235]) by relay11.aps.necel.com with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:19:36 +0900 Original-Received: by dhapc248.dev.necel.com (Postfix, from userid 31295) id 26B1C44A; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:19:36 +0900 (JST) Original-To: "Jan D." System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu Blat: Foop In-Reply-To: <200604100955.k3A9t1cP028530@coolsville.localdomain> (Jan D.'s message of "Mon, 10 Apr 2006 11:55:01 +0200 (CEST)") Original-Lines: 25 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:52593 Archived-At: "Jan D." writes: >> 4343 if (actual_format == 32 && actual_format < BITS_PER_LONG) >> 4344 { > > It can not be < 32 if BITS_PER_LONG is 32, that is true. But for a 64-bit CPU > BITS_PER_LONG is 64, so then it becomes relevant. It is only intended > to be relevant for the BITS_PER_LONG == 64 case. > > I think gcc optimizes the code away if it finds that > actual_format < BITS_PER_LONG can never be true. Then perhaps rewriting the test as: if (actual_format == 32 && BITS_PER_LONG > 32) would get rid of the warning (the checker should treat comparisons of constants with constants as being uninteresting, as they're almost always due to cpp macros like this). It would probably also virtually ensure that gcc optimizes away the code in the 32-bit BITS_PER_LONG case. -Miles -- Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.