https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70792
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Matthijs van Duin from comment #4) > It seems bug 51253 previously addressed this, which means this is a > regression. No. To be a regression it has to have previously worked, then stopped working. All versions of GCC warn about this code, so it's not a regression. The fix for bug 51253 only changed the code generation, it didn't stop the warnings being printed.
