https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109717
--- Comment #9 from Paul Smith ---
> Now they're issued even when the "problem" is in a system header.
Oh interesting: I have been in the habit of including all my 3rdparty library
headers using -isystem to avoid worrying about warnings/errors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109717
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109717
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And requiring every library to annotate every assumption causes regressions
like PR 109703, where the cure is worse than the disease.
A wrong-code bug is worse than a false positive warning, but the warni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109717
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |tree-optimization
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109717
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Some of the warnings were always present, but suppressed unless you used
-Wsystem-headers
Now they're issued even when the "problem" is in a system header.
This is considered progress ;-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109717
--- Comment #3 from Paul Smith ---
OK, well, we don't have to say "broken"; all I know is that perfectly
respectable code that used to work without triggering these warnings in older
versions of GCC, and with older -std=c++..., is now failing in
