https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
GCC 12 (and prior, down to 10) warns for the test case:
$ cat pr78989.ii && gcc -S -Wall pr78989.ii
int
asan_poison_variables ()
{
return (asan_poison_variables &&
# 6 "gimplify.cpp" 3 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
Bug 78989 depends on bug 77513, which changed state.
Bug 77513 Summary: -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant vs 0, nullptr, NULL and
__null
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77513
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> I suspect PR 77513 can be considered the dup.
As in, that's the dup of this, or this is the dup of that?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||77513
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
Isn't there a dup somewhere? I Know this was filed before.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
...or to use a rich location to send two locations for the warning, giving:
return (asan_poison_variables &&
^~
# 6 "gimplify.cpp" 3 4
__null
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Looking at the PRs you filed about the locations (PR78987 and PR78988), perhaps
the best approach here is for the location of the warning to be either this:
return (asan_poison_variables &&
~~~
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78989
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
10 matches
Mail list logo
