https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124159
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |siddhesh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
There are still some "middle-end" warnings which are scheduled fairly early and
should be quite reliable (many warnings have some false positives, the problem
is when they do have lots of false positives and even worse when gcc
optimizations are improved (e.g. value ranges), more and more false positives
for those show up).
So, I think we need to differentiate between "middle-end" warnings like
pass_warn_unused_result
OpenMP lowering/expansion diagnostics
pass_warn_function_return
pass_warn_nonnull_compare
pass_early_warn_uninitialized
maybe even the pass_build_ssa_passes versions of middle-end warnings, from the
well known problematic ones.
What about pass_warn_recursion? pass_warn_function_noreturn?
