On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 01:30:14PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> @@ -9447,10 +9448,19 @@ do_warn_unused_result (gimple_seq seq)
> location_t loc = gimple_location (g);
>
> if (fdecl)
> - warning_at (loc, OPT_Wunused_result,
> - "ignoring return value of %qD "
> - "declared with attribute %<warn_unused_result%>",
> - fdecl);
> + {
> + /* Some C libraries use alloca(0) in order to free previously
> + allocated memory by alloca calls. */
> + if (gimple_maybe_alloca_call_p (g)
> + && gimple_call_num_args (g) == 1
> + && integer_zerop (gimple_call_arg (g, 0)))
> + ;
> + else
Wouldn't it be easier to negate the condition and avoid the weird ; else ?
I.e. if (!gimple_maybe... || gimple_call_num != 1 || !integer_zerop?
> + warning_at (loc, OPT_Wunused_result,
> + "ignoring return value of %qD declared "
> + "with attribute %<warn_unused_result%>",
> + fdecl);
> + }
> else
> warning_at (loc, OPT_Wunused_result,
> "ignoring return value of function "
Otherwise LGTM as the patch, but I'd like to hear from others whether
it is kosher to add such a special case to the warn_unused_result attribute
warning. And if the agreement is yes, I think it should be documented
somewhere that alloca (0) will not warn even when the call has such an
attribute (probably in the description of warn_unused_result attribute).
Jakub
