From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 2553B38362E7; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 18:17:14 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2553B38362E7 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1671301034; bh=iyXN526Ybw7ryaS2cnB5uP0PMf6TXdS0OTD2bw8C7Gg=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ngck7poEn8f9+6RnALEgb3BeIeaP7sQE45geNzguYVVwjhSicmZJ1mL2wh+QPy37T keOd7N/VDFqp83gApHcIOr9tYSkLSR2pQPsaM3GZtvn++zLFAwlrpIqFo2VnqL+FZ3 LSL5HJnGi7NACKJE63w641c2XdcYU6AQpikfIR18= From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/108155] no warning for for (int i = 1; 1 <= 12; ++i) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2022 18:17:13 +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: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 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: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108155 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > Clang and EDG don't warn for this either, so maybe I'm the only person du= mb > enough to write this. It still seems useful, if we can define the right > semantics without false positives, but it's not a priority. No I have accidently written this too before.=20 The only false positive I can think of is with macros really.=