https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60488
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #8) > You're right, the test cases aren't equivalent, or meant to be. What I want > to highlight is that in the test case in comment #6, in g() and other > similar ones like it the warning is most likely going to be a false > positive, while in h(), not warning most likely a false negative. Both of > these "problems" are due to the same underlying assumption: that a variable > whose address escapes may be modified by a subsequent call to an unknown > function. Sure, but that assumption is not the problem in this PR, since assuming one thing or the other only matters for distinguishing between "is" and "may be", but a warning should have been given and it is not given.
