http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54202
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-08 14:36:03 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > To be honest, I don't want false-positive warnings. The code and data are > constructed so that it never frees the non-heap object (it has a reference > count of -1). If the driver to this warning can't be improved to be certain, > I'd recommend at least changing the text, like the -Wuninitialized one: > > 'varname' may be used uninitialized in this function > > When GCC warnings are assertive, like the "will break strict aliasing" one, we > go an extra mile to try and fix them. Note that even for the uninitialized use case we warn for functions that may be never executed at runtime. So - are you happy with the definitive warning if the free () call happens unconditionally when the function is entered?
