https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=126003
--- Comment #7 from Alejandro Colomar <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #6) > That's the distinction between pedwarns for overflow, in contexts where a > constant expression is required, and warnings, in contexts where one isn't > but an expression with constant operands would overflow and produce UB at > runtime if evaluated. Should the bug be reopened? I don't think it's invalid; or at least, the reasons given for considering it invalid are not technically correct.
