https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89985
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> since the issue of calls to inform being done without checking the return
> value of warning[_at] first seems to keep coming up, I almost wonder if it's
> worth a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89985
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89985
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89985
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Apr 5 15:15:37 2019
New Revision: 270169
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270169&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Guard notes for -Waddress-of-packed-member on warning emission (PR c/89
