On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 07:58:54PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 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.
Unrelated to where the warning is issued, it might be a good idea to use
%K to emit it with inlining stack, otherwise figuring out why it warns
will be harder than needed.
Jakub
