Your message dated Sun, 08 Jun 2008 07:32:15 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#128950: fixed in gcc-4.3 4.3.1-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #128950,
regarding [PR c/9072] -Wconversion should be split into two distinct flags
to be marked as done.
This mean
--- Comment #21 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 20:50
---
*** Bug 35214 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #20 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-23 16:09 ---
*** Bug 30916 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|lopezibanez at gmail dot com|manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-23 22:51
---
(In reply to comment #18)
> I have insufficient privileges to close this bug. Please, someone, close it as
> FIXED. Thanks.
You should be able to use your @gcc.gnu.org account to close the bug report.
--
pinsk
--- Comment #18 from lopezibanez at gmail dot com 2006-11-23 18:55 ---
I have insufficient privileges to close this bug. Please, someone, close it as
FIXED. Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9072
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You reported
--- Comment #17 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-23 18:39 ---
Subject: Bug 9072
Author: manu
Date: Thu Nov 23 18:39:32 2006
New Revision: 119129
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119129
Log:
2006-11-23 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c/
--- Comment #15 from lopezibanez at gmail dot com 2006-07-05 11:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=11827)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11827&action=view)
Adds a new function which detects when a real value can be exactly represented
as an integer.
Patch 2of3 http://
--- Comment #16 from lopezibanez at gmail dot com 2006-07-05 11:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=11828)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11828&action=view)
detect implicit conversions where a value may change
patch 3of3 http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Wcoercion#Background
De
--- Comment #14 from lopezibanez at gmail dot com 2006-07-05 11:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=11826)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11826&action=view)
split current functionality of Wconversion in two different options
This patch divides the functionality of Wcon
--
dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--
lopezibanez at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lopezibanez at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2005-09-18 01:16:21 |2005-12-18 00:36:20
date||
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-19 13:34
---
*** Bug 20535 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From gcc at sopwith dot solgatos dot com
2005-03-15 23:22 ---
I observe that gcc -Wconversion generates the exact same warning
message for converting from narrow to wide as it does for converting
from wide to narrow. Correct me if I'm wrong, but converting from
n
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9072
Jay dot St dot Pierre at Colorado dot EDU changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9072
pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > Has been analyzed. Patch is even in the audit trail, but
> > seems to have become stuck in gcc's patch acceptance machinery...
>
> The patch isn't even one suitable for review, as it lacks testcases. It
> is established procedure [0] that pa
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 02:57:26AM +0100, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> I didn't intend for it to be reviewed; I just asked if this was
> the kind of thing that was asked for. Writing a good patch for
> this was far more work (esp. writing a testcase that covers
> all cases). I have one in the work
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On 2 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has been analyzed. Patch is even in the audit trail, but
seems to have become stuck in gcc's patch acceptance machinery...
The patch isn't even one suitable for review, as it lacks testcases. It
I didn't intend for it to be revi
On 2 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Has been analyzed. Patch is even in the audit trail, but
> seems to have become stuck in gcc's patch acceptance machinery...
The patch isn't even one suitable for review, as it lacks testcases. It
is established procedure [0] that patches failing
Synopsis: -Wconversion should be split into two distinct flags
State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: bangerth
State-Changed-When: Sun Feb 2 22:54:20 2003
State-Changed-Why:
Has been analyzed. Patch is even in the audit trail, but
seems to have become stuck in gcc's patch
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I'm very much in favor of making -Wconversion more useful, but is
> there any reason not to shift the argument-type-conversion warnings
> entirely over to -Wtraditional? Particularly if the warning is
> avoided for prototypes in system headers (so that
Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Zack Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> I'm very much in favor of making -Wconversion more useful, but is
>> there any reason not to shift the argument-type-conversion warnings
>> entirely over to -Wtraditional? Particularly if the warning is
>> avoided for pro
Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
> I'm very much in favor of making -Wconversion more useful, but is
> there any reason not to shift the argument-type-conversion warnings
> entirely over to -Wtraditional? Particularly if the warning is
> avoided for prototypes in system headers (so that 'sinf' and the like
Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
>> It'd be nice if these two behaviors were two controlled via two
>> separate flags. The second behavior would have caught a bug I've been
>> hunting for hours, while the first behavior is very undesirable to me
>> (and useles
Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> The -Wconversion option to gcc is documented as doing two things:
>
>
> `-Wconversion'
> Warn if a prototype causes a type conversion that is different
> from what would happen to the same
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `c/9072'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: unassigned.
>Category: c
>Responsible:unassigned
>Synopsis: -Wconversion should be split into two distinct flags
>Arrival-Date: Fri Dec 27
28 matches
Mail list logo
