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 C86AB3858C98; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 12:34:37 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C86AB3858C98
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1710160477;
	bh=TvrMz59oAjkWjZQzp3JQiJMPiQ+85+fX96kw4F8lGNA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=bGZKgRDTp/ydHT9TV8QpbXyjDWUNeVD5xXgLZEHnIpMue/C+HL/syIDPNg72Wma5G
	 QvVe23Jt5ztdRGCSTsXXrPIgXo+dnebLP5lytFGMoPcSAtu+2V1683SxW0QRAk5m/I
	 //22VLcWa90xa0a7StAtcv9yEDRSltGXUBYvi6PM=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/105628] [12/13/14 Regression] False positive with -Waddress
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 12:34:36 +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: 12.1.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic, needs-bisection
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: DUPLICATE
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: resolution bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-105628-4-InOMoooWUs@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-105628-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-105628-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105628

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |DUPLICATE
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So it turns out the change for ?: to warn for -Waddress was done on purpose.
See PR 102967  . PR 102967  is about the wrong location for the warning and
such but it was originally about the same type of expression.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 102967 ***=