On Jul 2, 2009, at 11:18 AM, David Majnemer wrote: > You are correct, this should stay. The attached patch should address > this.
Looks good. Committed here: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090706/018779.html - Doug > 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>_______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
