On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 06:39:22AM +0000, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> --- gcc/c-family/c-warn.c (revision 268195)
> +++ gcc/c-family/c-warn.c (working copy)
> @@ -2725,14 +2725,18 @@ static tree
> check_address_or_pointer_of_packed_member (tree type, tree rhs)
> {
> bool rvalue = true;
> + bool indirect = false;
>
> if (INDIRECT_REF_P (rhs))
> - rhs = TREE_OPERAND (rhs, 0);
> + {
> + rhs = TREE_OPERAND (rhs, 0);
> + indirect = true;
> + }
>
> if (TREE_CODE (rhs) == ADDR_EXPR)
> {
> rhs = TREE_OPERAND (rhs, 0);
> - rvalue = false;
> + rvalue = indirect;
> }
Given the unfolded *&, I wonder if the above actually shouldn't be
a loop with indirection integral counter instead of a boolean
and simply bump the indirection count on INDIRECT_REF_P and decrease on
ADDR_EXPR, and if indirection count is > 0 after the loop return NULL_TREE?
Say for *&*& or similar, and ***var.field always not warning etc.
Otherwise the patch looks good.
Though you might throw in a few test lines with the intermixed casts and
compound exprs multiple times (why you've added correctly the loop in
there).
Jakub
