https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108155
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > Clang and EDG don't warn for this either, so maybe I'm the only person dumb > enough to write this. It still seems useful, if we can define the right > semantics without false positives, but it's not a priority. No I have accidently written this too before. The only false positive I can think of is with macros really.
