From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id E67DF3858415; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 19:14:41 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E67DF3858415
From: "andrew.cooper3 at citrix dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/102967] confusing location in -Waddress for a subexpression
 of a ternary expression
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 19:14:41 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: andrew.cooper3 at citrix dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-102967-4-rO8oaAH4P0@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-102967-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-102967-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 19:14:42 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102967

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3 at citrix dot com> ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1)
> The warning is intended: it points out that the second operand of the
> conditional expression is necessarily true:
>=20
>   if ( !(pa ? &pa->c : NULL) )
>               ^^^^^^
>=20
> There's no point in testing the address of a member for equality to null
> because  the member of no object can reside at that address.  The above c=
an
> be simplified to
>=20
>   if (!pa)

Hmm, true.  I suppose I got hung up on the statement made by the diagnostic,
rather than the implication that a simplification could be made.

Moving the underlining would certainly help.

> When reporting bugs, please be sure to include the full test case and its
> output as requested at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#need.

My apologies.  I'll try to be better next time.=