https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d6f1cf644c45b76a27b6a6869dedaa030e3c7570
commit r11-6900-gd6f1cf644c45b76a27b6a6869dedaa030e3c7570
Author: Martin Sebor
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
--- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> So, the problem is IMHO that the warning about passing NULL to this is
> misplaced, it shouldn't be done in the FEs, but later when there was at
> least some cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5)
> A better one:
>
> // PR c++/98646
> // { dg-do compile }
> // { dg-options "-Wnonnull" }
>
> struct B {
> void foo();
> };
>
> struct D : B {
> void show()
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't see how either TREE_NO_WARNING or some magic call would help.
Because the user can also write:
// PR c++/98646
// { dg-do compile }
// { dg-options "-Wnonnull" }
struct B { void foo (); };
struct D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
-Wnonnull still is in the front end (in addition to the middle end). This
instance is issued by check_nonnull_arg in c-family/c-common.c, but other
similar instances are issued from tree-ssa-ccp.c.
Rather th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek ---
Or, disable it when we call build_base_path with nonnull == 1?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> Confirmed. It must be an instance we missed in the fix for pr96003 where
> the C++ front end adds a COND_EXPR to static_cast.
>
> The larger context in the trans
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
A better one:
// PR c++/98646
// { dg-do compile }
// { dg-options "-Wnonnull" }
struct B {
void foo();
};
struct D : B {
void show();
};
void
D::show()
{
constexpr void *p = nullptr;
if (p)
s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
The reduced testcase is unfortunately overreduced :(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Started with r11-1697.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
See Also|
18 matches
Mail list logo
