From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 82B063840C33; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:13:33 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 82B063840C33 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1594394013; bh=n147CS1j57lENAmdn4jeavcBLYkeKumtOiPn+BYJK4c=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=FEXxThE/3okR4xEC9H+Fa9mqtr0KVXF7vStAoUzGdGOHygbFxD0p7xS7Zndhjdl4n Padj2EREdpYO6HTrl5iinWt+0aVmO2KUKaosIkz43N4B+C782OqUlw8PtuufiS1Kcc GOPy7TuPLIJRWnuMAvXRZ2jtzhtwmmQmz2Oz/Oq8= From: "lts-rudolph at gmx dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/94554] spurious -Waddress warning within "if constexpr" function-null compares Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:13:33 +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: 10.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: lts-rudolph at gmx dot de X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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: cc 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 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:13:33 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94554 Klaus Rudolph changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lts-rudolph at gmx dot de --- Comment #4 from Klaus Rudolph --- The code can be modified to be well formed if changed to: if constexpr (F !=3D nullptr )) { g++ still emits the bogus warning in that case which is a bug I believe!=