https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99581
--- Comment #10 from Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7) > The addition of those extra args makes clear that the function is no > longer just testing if it is a valid address. It should be renamed. > I don't like it too. When I first look at the patch I though it is a recursive call. For active C++ programmer function overloading is not the problem but imho it is better to rename the function/
