From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-178827-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 2837 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2006 23:25:20 -0000
Received: (qmail 2719 invoked by uid 48); 1 Mar 2006 23:25:17 -0000
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:25:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20060301232517.2718.qmail@sourceware.org>
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
References: <bug-4210-955@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Subject: [Bug middle-end/4210] should not warning with dead code
In-Reply-To: <bug-4210-955@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
From: "bangerth at dealii dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00186.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>



------- Comment #16 from bangerth at dealii dot org  2006-03-01 23:25 -------

> It does; I've used it to eliminate all these warnings in glibc's soft-fp 
> code.  Use statement expressions, i.e. surround the whole if body with ({ 
> }).

Ugh. Do we really want to advocate serious code obfuscation to avoid warnings?
W.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210