https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35503
--- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor ---
I don't think the current implementation of the warning is prone to false
positives so it seems that it could safely be included it in -Wall.
Unfortunately, the overly simplistic implementation makes it prone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35503
--- Comment #6 from Samuel Thibault ---
Well, yes and no: -Wrestrict does indeed warn about this in gcc 7 now, but
-Wall -Wextra does not contain -Wrestrict, so that makes it almost useless.
Is there a reason for not including -Wrestrict in at l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35503
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35503
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35503
--- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: prathamesh3492
Date: Sun Nov 13 19:38:36 2016
New Revision: 242366
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242366&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-13 Prathamesh Kulkarni
PR
--- Comment #2 from scovich at gmail dot com 2009-11-27 07:45 ---
I've also run into this. Perhaps the machinery which tracks strict aliasing
(and generates best-effort warnings) could be used here?
... adding this comment instead of filing a duplicate :P
--
scovich at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-25 11:15 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCON
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Keywords||diagnosti
