https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106920
--- Comment #5 from Dominique Martinet <npfhrotynz-ptnqh.myvf at noclue dot notk.org> --- hmm this is a pretty complex topic. My problem like pointed out in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578 is more with all the legacy code that I have to deal with, that isn't maintained by anyone, and well the sorry state of embedded systems upstreams in general... So I'm really just sitting there trying to get old code to keep working with my newer gcc version. (I actually wonder why that didn't fail with gcc11, I've been using that for a while...) The solution in that other bug ^ to just not issue warnings for constant addresses is good in general and I was just unlucky that such an address happened below 4k for this code. I don't understand why the ast tree cannot make the difference between a constant address and a constant null pointer macroed to hell, but since that only happens with optimizations enabled I guess some info is lost at that point and there was nothing to do or it would have been done. Anyway, I consider that closed, there's been enough ink spilled in the other thread and thank you all for the quick replies!
