[Bug c++/68767] [6 regression] spurious warning: null argument where non-null required
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68767 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek --- Fixed.
[Bug c++/68767] [6 regression] spurious warning: null argument where non-null required
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68767 --- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Mon Jan 18 15:54:14 2016 New Revision: 232522 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232522=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/68767 gcc/c-family/ * c-common.c (check_function_arguments_recurse): Fold the whole COND_EXPR, not just the condition. gcc/cp/ * cp-gimplify.c (cp_fold) [COND_EXPR]: Simplify. Do fold COND_EXPR. (contains_label_1, contains_label_p): Remove. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wnonnull2.C Modified: trunk/gcc/c-family/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/c-family/c-common.c trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/cp-gimplify.c
[Bug c++/68767] [6 regression] spurious warning: null argument where non-null required
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68767 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/68767] [6 regression] spurious warning: null argument where non-null required
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68767 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- The original testcase fails all the way back to r11 or so, don't have older snapshots around. The #c4 one also failed since forever, started to pass with r217465 and then reappeared with C++ delayed folding r230365.
[Bug c++/68767] [6 regression] spurious warning: null argument where non-null required
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68767 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- I think the problem here is that check_function_arguments_recurse just folds using fold_for_warn the condition, if instead of folding the condition the check_function_nonnull caller of check_function_arguments_recurse would fold_for_warn the whole argument and only then call check_function_arguments_recurse on it, it would rule out the NULL argument from there. But the disadvantage of that is that then we'd be warning on perhaps completely newly created trees that perhaps don't match very match the original, something the delayed folding rightly wants to avoid. Perhaps one option would be to do the non-NULL warning in two steps, where the first step is fold_for_warn the whole argument, recurse on it with a variant that will not fold_for_warn recursively (not needed) and just note if there is a need to warn instead of actually warning. And then, if this pass returned there is a reason to warn, call what we do now on the unfolded argument. Of course, the question is if the warning isn't really desirable, the user should really just choose some non-NULL magic value to pass in the impossible cases.
[Bug c++/68767] [6 regression] spurious warning: null argument where non-null required
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68767 --- Comment #11 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10) > Of course, the question is if the warning isn't really desirable, the user > should really just choose some non-NULL magic value to pass in the > impossible cases. Are you saying the *_TYPE definitions in newlib-stdint.h should not use 0 in any branches of their expressions?
[Bug c++/68767] [6 regression] spurious warning: null argument where non-null required
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68767 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke from comment #11) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10) > > Of course, the question is if the warning isn't really desirable, the user > > should really just choose some non-NULL magic value to pass in the > > impossible cases. > > Are you saying the *_TYPE definitions in newlib-stdint.h should not use 0 in > any branches of their expressions? If you pass such *_TYPE definitions to functions with nonnull argument, maybe yes. Find out some other invalid type, like "".
[Bug c++/68767] [6 regression] spurious warning: null argument where non-null required
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68767 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- May want to decide to give up later (INVALID, expected false positive)
[Bug c++/68767] [6 regression] spurious warning: null argument where non-null required
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68767 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0
[Bug c++/68767] [6 regression] spurious warning: null argument where non-null required
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68767 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[5 regression] spurious |[6 regression] spurious |warning: null argument |warning: null argument |where non-null required |where non-null required --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- You're right, it's a 6 regression, thanks. I'll see if I can look into the possibility of the delayed folding merge as the culprit.
