http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36299
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-01 15:37:25 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > > So, I assume that it has been fixed anyway. Do you confirm? I think the intention is to warn, at least for a == (void *)0, since the address of a cannot be zero or null. So I would say that this is a regression.