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 39B9C3858C33; Sun, 28 Jan 2024 16:21:10 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 39B9C3858C33
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1706458870;
	bh=pa4UTtzB/nwbE4XGZ5M2FI2m4LIgadp+rS/ha4oQwF8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=rx7SNnDVZ33RGHi/EYhmmZDoh1ERUIMTAqsaHLTi0it17CXkrHl3w2btemZhNMI85
	 lxn9V5GDVVZOjKxHBenffGyITrNQpgG0FmmI03D/Df5jmFH5WqfLKTkBqN5nZWWkMi
	 d4OsaTzW3wMeC/CBZXjt2h1RlzQbL/b3YukFah4Y=
From: "ostash at ostash dot kiev.ua" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/110075] Bogus -Wdangling-reference
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2024 16:21:09 +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: 13.1.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ostash at ostash dot kiev.ua
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-110075-4-JtXYy8ztFz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110075-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110075-4@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=3D110075

--- Comment #6 from Viktor Ostashevskyi <ostash at ostash dot kiev.ua> ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5)
> Yes, because we'd have to analyze the body of the function to see that it
> does not return one of the parameters, which often we can't do.
>=20
> There will be an attribute soon to suppress that warning.

I'm wondering whether this diagnostics should be in -Wall or -Wextra at all.
It is assumed that diagnostics in -Wall or -Wextra generally "works".

Here, diagnostics clearly fails on simplest case and I don't think marking =
huge
codebase with some attribute is a proper solution...=