https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16351
--- Comment #37 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #36) > It's no different maybe uninitialized warnings. Well, one can silence uninitialized warnings by simply initializing the variable. I don't see how this code can be refactored to silence the warning (and the way I understood the warning is by looking at the GCC dumps, which people will not do). > Note that in this case, the compiler should be determining that MAP can't be > NULL and thus linemap_check_ordinary can't return NULL and propagating that > information. So if we're still getting a warning, then something is wrong > somewhere. But how it can do such a thing if the definition of linemap_add were not available? (In this case it is, but GCC's IPA is not smart enough to figure it that it cannot return NULL. The code injected by -f-isolate-paths survives until the end). In any case, I don't see how to keep this in -Wall or -Wextra if it breaks GCC bootstrap. And options that are not enabled by either of those are rarely used and tend to bit-rot or receive little attention. Hum, perhaps, we do really need some kind of -Weverything that includes not every warning, but those that are potentially useful but too noisy to not break GCC bootstrap.
