http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33925
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-20 12:57:59 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > ... That's not an argument against improving the warning though. GCC's uses > occur in system headers so warnings are suppressed, and could be worked around > anyway with further extensions such as #pragma GCC diagnostic Or even better, only skip the warning for functions marked as weakref, which I guess is a very small subset. I think a patch that did that would be accepted. Unfortunately, Michael, I don't think there is anyone with enough free time to work on this, so if you submitted a patch, that would be great! Thanks.
