On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So I *think* your patch fixes the wrong problem. That's probably at
> least somewhat my fault because I misunderstood the issue before and may
> have described it wrong at some point.
>
> AFAICT, gcc isn't doing anything wrong, and the false positives are
> "intentional".
>
> There are in fact two static warnings (which are being silenced for new
> versions of gcc):
[ snip snip details ]
Ok.
Color me convinced, I never even looked at the two different cases, I
thought it was just one issue.
Let's just remove the spurious false positive warning then, in order
to re-instate the *actual* warning that right now is disabled entirely
due to the unrelated false positives.
Thanks for looking into this. Would you happen to also have a patch
that can be applied? Hint hint..
Linus
