You are correct, this should stay. The attached patch should address this.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Eli Friedman<[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:21 PM, David Majnemer<[email protected]> > wrote: >> I misread the rules in 6.5.9 which caused false diagnostic messages. >> The attached patch should correct this issue and also includes updated >> test cases. > > @@ -27,5 +29,10 @@ > return a > b; // expected-warning {{ordered comparison of function > pointers}} > return function_pointers > function_pointers; // expected-warning > {{ordered comparison of function pointers}} > return a == (void *) 0; > - return a == (void *) 1; // expected-warning {{comparison of > distinct pointer types}} > + return a == (void *) 1; > > This warning was correct the way it was. > > -Eli >
fixed_bug_4175.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
