From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Suspicious warning in W64 build Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 23:17:40 +0300 Message-ID: <837ex9x7vf.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1017454172.910810.1504618695244@mail.libero.it> <83tw0ezgi1.fsf@gnu.org> <1146932094.13821.1504798935795@mail.libero.it> <83mv66z66p.fsf@gnu.org> <102a4c21-c275-c73e-ec53-0d85975dc968@cs.ucla.edu> <83a825znuf.fsf@gnu.org> <831snhzkgw.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1504901899 6507 195.159.176.226 (8 Sep 2017 20:18:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:18:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, angelo.g0@libero.it, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Richard Copley Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 08 22:18:14 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dqPjA-0001Lm-Np for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 22:18:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47177 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dqPjH-0006v3-WA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 16:18:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34441) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dqPii-0006uf-9K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 16:17:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dqPie-0001rK-AX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 16:17:44 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:45959) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dqPie-0001r4-6O; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 16:17:40 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4265 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1dqPic-0006WI-BD; Fri, 08 Sep 2017 16:17:40 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Richard Copley on Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:31:08 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:218030 Archived-At: > From: Richard Copley > Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:31:08 +0100 > Cc: Paul Eggert , Angelo Graziosi , > Emacs Development > > Would you mind also suppressing warnings from find-file-noselect > when called from autoload-find-generated-file, please, if you don't > object? Sorry, I'm not sure that's the right solution in that case. We should try to understand why the problem happens in the first place. E.g., I don't see it here (but I don't use MinGW64 or MSYS2). > "Crazy" was too strong (not to mention insensitive) a word to use, > but I still can't see that GCC is justified to warn when an > expression's value _might_ be out of range based on operand types; > taken to extremes that would rule out "alloca((size_t)n)". So either > I'm still missing something, or there's a GCC bug, or the compiler > correctly deduced that a negative number is passed in. I'm probably > still missing something. The only thing you might be missing is the fact that we passed the compiler the -Walloc-size-larger-than=9223372036854775807 option.