diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
index e0b594b433d..076e4e3a500 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+2014-05-23  Richard Biener  <rguenther@suse.de>
+
+	PR testsuite/61266
+	* gcc.dg/Wstrict-overflow-18.c: Revert un-XFAILing and
+	adjust testcase to reflect reality.
+
 2014-05-23  Thomas Preud'homme  <thomas.preudhomme@arm.com>
 
 	PR tree-optimization/54733
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Wstrict-overflow-18.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Wstrict-overflow-18.c
index 7bf111a50ea..bab91ce3889 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Wstrict-overflow-18.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Wstrict-overflow-18.c
@@ -1,11 +1,8 @@
 /* { dg-do compile } */
 /* { dg-options "-fstrict-overflow -O2 -Wstrict-overflow" } */
 
-/* Don't warn about an overflow when folding i > 0.  The loop analysis
-   should determine that i does not wrap.
-
-   The test is really bogus, p->a - p->b can be larger than INT_MAX
-   and thus i can very well wrap.  */
+/* Warn about an overflow when folding i > 0, p->a - p->b can be larger
+   than INT_MAX and thus i can wrap.  */
 
 struct c { unsigned int a; unsigned int b; };
 extern void bar (struct c *);
@@ -17,7 +14,7 @@ foo (struct c *p)
 
   for (i = 0; i < p->a - p->b; ++i)
     {
-      if (i > 0)  /* { dg-bogus "warning" "" } */
+      if (i > 0)  /* { dg-warning "signed overflow" "" } */
 	sum += 2;
       bar (p);
     }