https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81484
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81484
--- Comment #5 from Arnd Bergmann ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> (In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #3)
> > It seems I got a little confused when I only looked at the initial patch
> > that was proposed, which was supposed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81484
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Arnd Bergmann from comment #3)
> It seems I got a little confused when I only looked at the initial patch
> that was proposed, which was supposed to cover specifically the comparison
> followed b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81484
--- Comment #3 from Arnd Bergmann ---
It seems I got a little confused when I only looked at the initial patch that
was proposed, which was supposed to cover specifically the comparison followed
by ?: as in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81484
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
...which could be simply written as:
void
foo (int c)
{
if (c == 0)
__builtin_abort ();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81484
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
