From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11477 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2014 12:33:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11464 invoked by uid 89); 5 Aug 2014 12:33:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 12:33:02 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s75CX1YR015304 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 5 Aug 2014 08:33:01 -0400 Received: from [10.10.116.19] ([10.10.116.19]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s75CX006005202; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 08:33:00 -0400 Message-ID: <53E0CEF9.7020204@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 12:33:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paolo Carlini , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 43906 References: <53DFB3AE.1030706@oracle.com> <53DFF100.6010105@redhat.com> <53E010B2.6050703@oracle.com> <53E03A36.5080203@redhat.com> <53E0C4C4.3010101@oracle.com> <53E0C99A.4060003@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <53E0C99A.4060003@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00346.txt.bz2 On 08/05/2014 08:10 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: > .. a clarification. As I tried to briefly explain yesterday, this kind > of change means that: > > extern void z(); > void il() { if (z != (void*)0) z(); } > > doesn't trigger anymore the pedwarn at beginning of > composite_pointer_type about the comparison itself, for the simple > reason that we don't call it anymore. So let's keep calling it when the RHS is also a pointer? Jason