AaronBallman wrote: > > Just to confirm: is it intended that `char *s = NULL;` now generates this > > warning? I mean, the C library may define `NULL` as `((void*)0)`, and `char > > *s = ((void*)0);` is clearly not C++-compatible. However, when compiling > > this code in C++, `NULL` may expand to something that IS actually okay in > > C++ (like `0`, `nullptr` or `__null`). So this warning may be a bit too > > noisy overall? > > https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/hnMfsPjsa > > Hmmm, semi-intended. It's intended to diagnose `void foo(void *ptr) { char *s > = ptr; }`, but a null pointer constant initialization, regardless of form > (`nullptr`, `(void *)0`, `__null`, etc) should not be diagnosed. So I think I > need to be more clever here; I'll work on a fix (thought it likely won't be > until tomorrow at this point). Thank you for bringing this up!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/140724 should address this concern https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138271 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
