This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Implement -Wduplicated-branches (PR c/64279) (v3)
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Marek Polacek <polacek at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:53:47 +0100
- Subject: Re: Implement -Wduplicated-branches (PR c/64279) (v3)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20161101135358.GP3541@tucnak.redhat.com> <20161103112447.GT5939@redhat.com> <CADzB+2nphvPrhK05o4zsWw-3zjB_Q+3NNqCdSYT0cxeuwC9XPA@mail.gmail.com> <20161103133850.GJ3541@tucnak.redhat.com> <20170105153940.GI8104@redhat.com> <20170105154128.GB21933@tucnak> <20170109092147.GJ8104@redhat.com> <20170109111801.GE21933@tucnak> <20170109133930.GM8104@redhat.com> <20170119165213.GG17248@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 05:52:14PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > I agree that not warning for
> > if (foo)
> > return NULL;
> > else
> > return NULL;
> > is bad. But how can I compare those expressions side-by-side? I'm not finding
> > anything. :(
>
> Seems like ENOTIME to address this; will you be ok with the patch as-is
> (modulo Jeff comments), if I open a PR about the above test case?
Yeah.
Jakub