[Bug c/102967] confusing location in -Waddress for a subexpression of a ternary expression

2024-04-05 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lsof at mailbox dot org --- Comment

[Bug c/102967] confusing location in -Waddress for a subexpression of a ternary expression

2024-04-05 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||arnaud.lb at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c/102967] confusing location in -Waddress for a subexpression of a ternary expression

2024-03-11 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jroemmler at altair dot com ---

[Bug c/102967] confusing location in -Waddress for a subexpression of a ternary expression

2022-09-19 Thread amachronic at protonmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967 Aidan MacDonald changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amachronic at protonmail dot com

[Bug c/102967] confusing location in -Waddress for a subexpression of a ternary expression

2022-05-27 Thread jbeulich at suse dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967 --- Comment #8 from jbeulich at suse dot com --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #7) > Both for the purposes of the warning (which can be more restrictive than > what the language considers valid), and in the C language, the semantics of

[Bug c/102967] confusing location in -Waddress for a subexpression of a ternary expression

2021-11-04 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- Both for the purposes of the warning (which can be more restrictive than what the language considers valid), and in the C language, the semantics of the -> expression depend on the first operand designating

[Bug c/102967] confusing location in -Waddress for a subexpression of a ternary expression

2021-11-04 Thread schwab--- via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967 --- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab --- &*E is allowed for E == NULL, but I don't think this can be generalized to >m.

[Bug c/102967] confusing location in -Waddress for a subexpression of a ternary expression

2021-11-04 Thread jbeulich at suse dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967 --- Comment #5 from jbeulich at suse dot com --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4) > The expression pa->c is only valid if pa points to a valid object. Well, yes, you may not deref pa if it's NULL, i.e. I agree for pa->c. But is >c

[Bug c/102967] confusing location in -Waddress for a subexpression of a ternary expression

2021-11-04 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- The expression pa->c is only valid if pa points to a valid object.

[Bug c/102967] confusing location in -Waddress for a subexpression of a ternary expression

2021-11-04 Thread jbeulich at suse dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967 jbeulich at suse dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jbeulich at suse dot com ---

[Bug c/102967] confusing location in -Waddress for a subexpression of a ternary expression

2021-10-27 Thread andrew.cooper3 at citrix dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Cooper --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1) > The warning is intended: it points out that the second operand of the > conditional expression is necessarily true: > > if ( !(pa ? >c : NULL) ) >

[Bug c/102967] confusing location in -Waddress for a subexpression of a ternary expression

2021-10-27 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|