From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-479986-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 124798 invoked by alias); 10 Mar 2015 14:50:20 -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 124711 invoked by uid 48); 10 Mar 2015 14:50:12 -0000
From: "ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/65323] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] duplicate -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant warnings
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:50:00 -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: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-65323-4-kxx4lFI1uP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-65323-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-65323-4@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: 2015-03/txt/msg01130.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65323

Kai Tietz <ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz <ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Hmm, the issue seems to be that we emit within check_default_argument () two
times the call to maybe_warn_zero_as_null_pointer_constant ().  Once indirectly
via perform_implicit_conversion_flags () call, and then later on directly
within if-condition for returning nullptr_node.
It seems that second call is superflous in terms of warning.  So I suggest the
following patch:

Index: decl.c
===================================================================
--- decl.c      (Revision 221277)
+++ decl.c      (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -11231,7 +11233,8 @@ check_default_argument (tree decl, tree arg, tsub
       && TYPE_PTR_OR_PTRMEM_P (decl_type)
       && null_ptr_cst_p (arg)
       && (complain & tf_warning)
-      && maybe_warn_zero_as_null_pointer_constant (arg, input_location))
+      && c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings == 0
+      && !NULLPTR_TYPE_P(TREE_TYPE (arg)))
     return nullptr_node;

   /* [dcl.fct.default]