https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108770
Sam James <sjames at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever confirmed|1 |0
Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED |---
Keywords| |false-positive
--- Comment #9 from Sam James <sjames at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Teylu from comment #8)
> > and also add the new option on top.
>
> Doesn't the new option just cause gcc to elucidate the existing warning a
> bit more?
Yes. I was going off what Qing had said wrt the example being broken.
>
> I think, even if gcc tries to explain a bit more, the diagnostic is still
> spurious.
... but looking at it more, I think it is indeed an FP.
