https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lsof at mailbox dot org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arnaud.lb at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jroemmler at altair dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967
Aidan MacDonald changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amachronic at protonmail dot
com
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
---
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) )
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
12 matches
Mail list logo