On Wed, 29 Jan 2020, Jeff Law wrote:

> In the last major change in this code was ~5 years ago and twiddled the
> handling of the switch expression to call convert_lvalue_to_rvalue.
> 
> The last argument to that function indicates whether or not we should
> mark the switch expression as a use of the object.  We're currently
> passing in "false" so the object doesn't get marked and we get the
> bogus warning.
> 
> The obvious fix is to pass in "true", which is what the proposed patch
> does.  If there's a reason we can't/shouldn't do that in this case we
> could call mark_exp_read on the switch expression at some point other
> point.
> 
> Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64.  OK for the trunk?

I think the code passes false simply because it was a straight conversion 
from previous code that (probably erroneously) didn't call mark_exp_read.  
The patch is OK.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com

Reply via email to