On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:54:06AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > I don't claim it can't be improved but it seems pretty good as
> > > it is already. Among the 6 instances it's found in GCC three
> > > look like real bugs.
> >
> > None look like real bugs to me.
> But is the warning rate so high that we need to revert/reject the warning as
> implemented. That's my question. 6 across GCC doesn't sound bad across a
> multi-million line codebase.
It isn't 6 across GCC, it is 6 across a single target and single set of
compiler options. Other targets and other options have different sets,
there is some overlap, but only partial.
Jakub
