Hi Daniel, Kim, Thanks for your review.
> Kim Barrett <kim.barrett at oracle.com> on Tue Sep 1 09:46:26 UTC 2020 > > Changes look good, subject to that caveat. I think these changes conform > better to the documented description of the warning than did the recent > NetworkInterface.c change mentioned above, so I’m hopeful that we’re not > in a warning cycle here. But it would be good to have someone test these > changes against gcc10.x. I just tested this patch by GCC (10.1.0) and it would really re-trigger those warnings :( I have not noticed the history before, but it's really hard to imagine that GCC would have different behaviors. >Daniel Fuchs <daniel.fuchs at oracle.com> on Tue Sep 1 11:59:17 UTC 2020 > > Thanks for reminding me of these changes. > Indeed, the changes proposed to NetworkInteface.c - though > not incorrect - may well re-trigger this gcc10 warning [1]. > So now I don't think this should go through unless it's verified > that it doesn't cause further issues down the road. Do you think it's a good idea to suppress those warnings by pragma? As we already know the code are actually correct, and that would make GCC happy both for 9 and 10. Thanks, Eric
