From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id F36D53838B20; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 18:14:52 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F36D53838B20 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1671300893; bh=M+bpS/VC5wyL2oaHz458m64+UVv404deGcgVIGyR4+o=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Op/IYQ9x7wbsBaercg6r7JKiykDEXm5BAocmnMy4BFnm1uNl3DjvZLDJ+beiO3/4O ZKuYhAhUtgpDrN3rfNo3TcvysNcx4x+RrBX+Niab4x8nBJMC5MThKe63a+iQvszRLG ZBByR6pONIgotK5xD4b6ZCucOCfa1ODi9iQTwWEQ= From: "redi 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 18:14:52 +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: redi 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 #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Clang and EDG don't warn for this either, so maybe I'm the only person dumb enough to write this. It still seems useful, if we can define the right semantics without false positives, but it's not a priority.=