From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-444697-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 8293 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2014 16:19:58 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 8243 invoked by uid 48); 24 Feb 2014 16:19:55 -0000
From: "paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/58950] Missing "statement has no effect"
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:19:00 -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: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-58950-4-ttkUP32VY7@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-58950-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-58950-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-02/txt/msg02454.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950

--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> ---
Yes, I know that. What I'm saying is that other code may want to see that
TREE_NO_WARNING honored, the issue doesn't have much to do with 54583 per se.
In my personal opinion removing a TREE_NO_WARNING check is in general a pretty
risky thing to do, because unfortunately we have only that generic bit and we
use it in many different circumstances.