https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88566
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88566
Trass3r changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88566
Andrew Macleod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88566
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> This is a non flow sensitive warning. There are a bunch were are not; flow
> sensitivity would make this warning worse not better in my mind as it means
> in inl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88566
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
This is a non flow sensitive warning. There are a bunch were are not; flow
sensitivity would make this warning worse not better in my mind as it means in
inlining would cause correct warnings to disappear.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88566
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88566
--- Comment #1 from krux ---
Even simpler example:
uint8_t foo(uint8_t pin)
{
return pin > 0 ? pin - 1 : 0;
}
