https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578
--- Comment #33 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #31) > As I mentioned in comment #25 and elsewhere, I envisioned that code would > annotate these hardwired addresses somehow, ideally using an attribute like > addr or the Keil compiler's at (see below), or until one is added, using a > workaround like your absolute_pointer(). I realize it means work, but I > believe with the attribute the gain in type safety would make it worthwhile. > Is that something the kernel developers could be trained to start using? > (In full disclosure, I don't expect to have the cycles to work on the > attribute anytime soon.) Whether or not it's reasonable to expect working code to be transitioned to a new feature, in the absence of such a feature (and no likelihood of it appearing any time soon) we should not be giving warnings for this code. The idea that it's zero-cost or zero-risk to go around sprinkling casts in working code that passes all its tests is foolish. Every cast added to silence a false positive warning has a risk of introducing a new problem and hiding a real bug in future.
