On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:54:06AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > > I don't claim it can't be improved but it seems pretty good as > > > it is already. Among the 6 instances it's found in GCC three > > > look like real bugs. > > > > None look like real bugs to me. > But is the warning rate so high that we need to revert/reject the warning as > implemented. That's my question. 6 across GCC doesn't sound bad across a > multi-million line codebase.
It isn't 6 across GCC, it is 6 across a single target and single set of compiler options. Other targets and other options have different sets, there is some overlap, but only partial. Jakub