https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99251
Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |95507
Last reconfirmed| |2021-02-24
Keywords| |diagnostic
Summary|Strange -Wnonnull warning |[11 Regression]
|behaviour with dynamic_cast |inconsistent -Wnonnull
| |warning behaviour with
| |dynamic_cast
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC| |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We discussed this instance of the warning in pr98646 and decided that even
though issuing it for an access to the result of dynamic_cast was strictly a
false positive when the operand was guaranteed to be nonnull by a prior test,
the workaround to cast to a reference rather than a pointer was simple enough
and made the intent clearer:
return dynamic_cast<cl2 &>(*p).i();
But the inconsistency exhibited in this test case is not a good thing
(enclosing the cast in parentheses certainly shouldn't make a difference) and
suggests the decision should be revisited. The warning for the dynamic_cast
should either be issued consistently or not at all. Let me look into it.
Referenced Bugs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95507
[Bug 95507] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wnonnull
