https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54878
Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The followings don't exist anymore in the current code: a, b, c, h.
d) is still present, but it is for generated code, due to the very generic way
the code is being generated. Not an issue.
e) is still present. I think it's guaranteed that base is not NULL, but someone
might want to double-check the logic there.
f) was fixed in:
commit a0b012be6aef65bd11107f8dac814c3ac36f95d0
Author: Tobias Burnus <bur...@net-b.de>
Date: 2013-03-29 10:32:57 +0100
g) Not sure why it's considered bad practice to ignore the return value of a
function call. In some cases, it's not a problem.
