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 A8FCD385842C; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 21:09:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A8FCD385842C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1671570585;
	bh=RRJtkQpbkT2kJZwX1aQeHG2hGzKb5/vrUpX3U+ZCgys=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=iYdzGMqTCjg8wXOt1zjRhFyh2HR9zxHTesLU360P672VgQI+D768ZehBFaTwq/UFA
	 QdzZ5ZcED+KmS+CLe0dXJySxyJl2z08IFL59H2IgVhX2g3xbYqpskgSAgl6ra+Z5tg
	 PTd0210PJy0Pv9KlAVyCnudCqDkvBeOvEfi7Fl94=
From: "james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/108189] anonymous struct declared inside parameter list
 will not be visible outside of this definition or declaration
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2022 21:09:45 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: MOVED
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-108189-4-bB24BFGTwC@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108189-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108189-4@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=3D108189

--- Comment #8 from James Hilliard <james.hilliard1 at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> Yes the warning is really still correct even if a closer testcase would b=
e:
> ```
> int f(struct {int t;} *b)
> {
>   return b->t;
> }
>=20
> int f1(void *a)
> {
>   return f(a);
> }
> ```
> I am actually shocked clang didn't implement this warning since there is =
no
> type which is compatible with the typeof *b outside of function f.

Yeah, clang with -std=3Dgnu17 -pedantic doesn't even complain at all from t=
he
looks of it. Does it make sense to allow disabling this specific warning in
GCC?=