From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9376 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2005 13:11:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 9247 invoked by uid 48); 26 Jul 2005 13:11:38 -0000 Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:13:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050726131138.9246.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050726121309.23075.neil@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20050726121309.23075.neil@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/23075] [4.0/4.1 Regression] Redundant / bogus warning X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg03345.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-26 13:11 ------- Confirmed, one warning comes from the front-end and the other bogus warning comes from the middle-end. I have not looked to see if we set TREE_NO_WARNING on the return and if the middle-end looks at that flag but I think that might be a way around the issue. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed| |1 Keywords| |diagnostic Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-07-26 13:11:36 date| | Summary|Redundant / bogus warning |[4.0/4.1 Regression] | |Redundant / bogus warning Target Milestone|--- |4.0.2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23075