http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47931
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gmail dot com> 2011-02-28 19:38:15 UTC --- To add a suggested solution to my report: Since many (most?) comparisons will be against NULL which can be defined as either 0 or (void*)0 I think it would be best to diagnose both forms. To make it possible to easily silence the warning I suggest not diagnosing cases of comparison against a null pointer constant of the same type. I.e., like so: int i; if (&i); // warning if (&i == 0); // warning if (&i == (void*)0); // warning if (&i == (int*)0); // NO warning
