https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70194
--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek ---
I kept this open intentionally but the missing warning is back, so perhaps we
should use a new PR to track the minor issues raised in Comment 1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70194
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70194
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Thu Mar 17 10:29:36 2016
New Revision: 234281
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234281&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/70194
* typeck.c (warn_for_null_address): New fu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70194
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
This patch fixes the missing warning:
--- a/gcc/cp/typeck.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/typeck.c
@@ -4520,14 +4520,16 @@ cp_build_binary_op (location_t location,
else
result_type = type0;
- if (TREE_CODE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70194
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
Or rather fold_non_dependent_expr.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70194
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Seems like we just need to add maybe_constant_value calls.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70194
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70194
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70194
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor ---
Below is a more comprehensive test case derived from one for another bug where
I noticed this problem. It might be useful as a starting point for a test case
for this one. Besides the regression it reveals a
