Isn't this supposed to be caught by this check:

quoted

quoted

         a, __same_type(a, NULL)

?

Yeah, but gcc thinks it is smarter than us...
Probably it drops the test, assuming UB cannot happen.

Hmm, sounds like a GGC bug to me then. Not sure how to fix this then.

I don't see a clear bug at this point. We are talking about the C expression

   __same_type((void*)0, (void*)0)? 0 : sizeof((void*)0)/sizeof(*((void*0))

This expression is valid (assuming __same_type works, which is a GCC 
extension), and should return 0. As of now, I have no indication that 
this expression does not return 0. Also, it is true that this expression 
contains the suspicious pattern "sizeof(void*)/sizeof(void)", which is 
does not calculate the size of any array. GCC is free to emit as much 
warnings is it wants for any kind of expressions. From a C standard 
point of view, it's just a "quality of implementation" issue, and an 
implementation that emits useless warnings is of low quality, but not 
non-conforming.

In this case, we requested that gcc refuses to compile if it emits any 
kind of warning, which instructs gcc to reject programs that would be 
valid according to the C standard, but are deemed to be "likely incorrect".

I suggest to file a bug against gcc complaining about a "spurious 
warning", and using "-Werror -Wno-error-sizeof-pointer-div" until gcc is 
adapted to not emit the warning about the pointer division if the result 
is not used.


Regards,
   Michael Karcher