------- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-06-20 09:36 ------- (In reply to comment #5) > I fiddled with the supplied patch, and got this > > --- expr.c.sav 2005-06-18 14:45:34.000000000 +0100 > +++ expr.c 2005-06-19 11:19:02.000000000 +0100 > @@ -5537,6 +5537,20 @@ > [...] > I tried it out on the gcc34, and it seemed to work fine, finding eight > bugs in the Linux kernel.
I think popular opinion has changed now in that expr.c is not the right place for a warning after all, so it should rather be done in the frontend in c-typeck.c as originally proposed. Jeff, do you agree? (original thread: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-07/msg01000.html) -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |law at redhat dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8268
