Ping:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg01715.html
Jeff
On 01/27/2014 08:09 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
+ if (dereference)
+ warning_at ((gimple_location (use_stmt)
+? gimple_location (use_stmt)
+: gimple_phi_arg_location (phi, i)),
+
Ping:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg01715.html
On 01/27/14 14:02, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
We utilize the analysis done for the erroneous-paths optimization. The
optimizations and warnings can be enabled/disabled independently. The
warnings are not enabled by -Wall.
I want to raise the usual caution about warnings that are based on
optimiz
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> First, as is often the case, this warning is not going to catch everything.
> Dead code elimination, unreachable code elimination, etc can/will remove
> NULL pointer dereferences and if that happens we don't get a warning. It
> also will not c
[ Yes, 16351, it's that old. ]
First, as is often the case, this warning is not going to catch
everything. Dead code elimination, unreachable code elimination, etc
can/will remove NULL pointer dereferences and if that happens we don't
get a warning. It also will not catch cases where a NULL
