https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3 at citrix dot com> --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1) > The warning is intended: it points out that the second operand of the > conditional expression is necessarily true: > > if ( !(pa ? &pa->c : NULL) ) > ^^^^^^ > > There's no point in testing the address of a member for equality to null > because the member of no object can reside at that address. The above can > be simplified to > > if (!pa) Hmm, true. I suppose I got hung up on the statement made by the diagnostic, rather than the implication that a simplification could be made. Moving the underlining would certainly help. > When reporting bugs, please be sure to include the full test case and its > output as requested at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#need. My apologies. I'll try to be better next time.
