On 02/16/2012 02:14 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > First, if there isn't a bug in Bugzilla for this problem please file one > so it's properly tracked if it takes a while to work out how to solve it.
OK, tracked with PR52283 > As I understand it from your testcases, it's a matter of certain code that > is not valid ISO C but you would like to be accepted unless -pedantic, by > analogy with other such code that is accepted. > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Christian Bruel wrote: > >> What I'm unsure is why we couldn't have a TREE_NO_WARNING on a >> !CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P. This seems necessary on some cases without using a >> NOP_EXPR. > > Richard explained this. thanks for the explanation, Christian
