https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106080
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3) > I don't think we should be warning here at all and I have a patch to that > effect. I also disagree with the saying we should not be warning here. Address to lables are undefined once they leave the function scope (or in the case of statement expressions; out of the statement expression scope). We even document that. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-12.2.0/gcc/Labels-as-Values.html#Labels-as-Values > You may not use this mechanism to jump to code in a different function. If > you do that, totally unpredictable things happen. The best way to avoid this > is to store the label address only in automatic variables and never pass it > as an argument. We should be warning about this case just because of the above wording in the documentation.
