http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2012-02-16 17:09:30 UTC --- On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > I hope we'll eventually extend TREE_NO_WARNING to be a bit that thise tree > should be looked up in some hash table on what warnings should be suppressed > on > it, so that TREE_NO_WARNING does only disable warnings that it wants to. That won't help with the issue of not being able to set it on shared trees, of course; you'll need separate trees for each use of a constant or declaration for that.
