--- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 18:35 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> The submitter's testcase fails on powerpc-linux with the current 4.1 and 4.2
> branches but has passed on mainline for several months. In comment #9 I said
> that result
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-16 20:01 ---
> Specification of the proposed new behaviour:
>
> 1. GCC should ignore unknown -Wno-* options if no other warnings are to
>be issued. This is always correct since the only effect of such an
>
--- Comment #1 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-10 14:43 ---
This was fixed by:
r113201 | doko | 2006-04-23 20:15:34 +0200 (Sun, 23 Apr 2006) | 4 lines
2006-04-22 Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTEC
--- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-25 23:42 ---
Subject: Bug 28322
Author: manu
Date: Mon Feb 25 23:41:43 2008
New Revision: 132648
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132648
Log:
2008-02-26 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #11 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-26 00:59 ---
The main request of this bug (ignore unknown -Wno-* options) has been committed
to 4.4. Is there anything else left to do?
As for
5. The changes to implement (1) and (2) should be backported to
earlier GCCs and
--- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-27 12:34 ---
Patches for older branches have been posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg01357.html
I hope they are useful and don't break anything ;-)
If there is nothing else to do in this PR, I will
--- Comment #14 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-27 13:42 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Thanks a lot for taking the time to write a patch for this. I do have one
> question: if I'm reading the patch correctly, this postpones warnings about
> unrecognised option
--- Comment #15 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-01 16:36 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Thanks a lot for taking the time to write a patch for this. I do have one
> question: if I'm reading the patch correctly, this postpones warnings about
> unrecognised option
--- Comment #16 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 15:19 ---
The patch for gcc 4.3 was a duplicate of the patch for gcc 4.2. The correct
patch for gcc 4.3 is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg00094.html
(thanks to Matthias Klose for noticing this
--- Comment #17 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-04 20:29 ---
Subject: Bug 28322
Author: manu
Date: Tue Mar 4 20:28:52 2008
New Revision: 132870
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132870
Log:
2008-03-04 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-10 00:37 ---
@Adam,
If you think that something is wrong in the documentation, please point out
exactly which text should be removed and what should be added. Also, feel free
to submit a documentation patch: http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-10 00:52 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
>
> Actually, I like that response. I might try to use it myself next time one of
> our customers reports a problem.
I guess that your contracted GCC support developers may give yo
--- Comment #22 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-22 09:59 ---
Not working on this.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-06 16:38 ---
Subject: Bug 26785
Author: manu
Date: Wed Aug 6 16:37:06 2008
New Revision: 138816
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=138816
Log:
2008-08-06 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-06 16:42 ---
Fixed in GCC 4.4.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--
Bug 19430 depends on bug 179, which changed state.
Bug 179 Summary: -Wuninitialized missing warning with &var
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179
What|Old Value |New Value
--
--- Comment #16 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-20 22:31 ---
All testcases except the one in the original description were actually
duplicates of PR179 and are thusly fixed.
The original testcase deals with PHI ops which is a completely different beast.
I added it XFAILED as
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|manu at gcc dot gnu dot org |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30088
--- You are
--- Comment #24 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-12 00:25 ---
Is there anything that remains to be done here?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 12:00 ---
Taking address of var causes missing may be uninitialized.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19430 ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 12:00 ---
*** Bug 42079 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #28 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-30 01:49 ---
Seems to be working according to the original specification (in particular
points 1 and 2). The debian bug report is still closed as fixed.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #30 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-30 11:19 ---
No problem. This was implemented in GCC 4.4 and mentioned in the changes.html
page. We haven't received any complaints so far, so closing as FIXED.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-13 00:21 ---
The code warning:
155347 jason user_args = args == NULL ? NULL : *args;
155347 jason /* Under DR 147 A::A() is an invalid constructor call,
155347 jason not a functional cast. */
155347
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-24 13:25 ---
Is it impossible to detect this in the compiler?
Can't we put the vtable somewhere else (or break it in pieces) such triggering
the error in the compiler?
Otherwise, we should just close this as WONTFIX.
--
--- 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]>
--
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
--
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
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 01:15 ---
I agree with most of what you say but, unfortunately, unless someone that can
approve a patch for this also agrees, it is pointless even to think about how
to implement it. Also, bugzilla is not closely followed by GCC
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #11 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-13 15:12 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Created an attachment (id=11520)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11520&action=view) [edit]
> proposed patch (with doc and test changes)
>
Thanks for th
--- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-13 17:19 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Already posted as <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-04/msg00885.html>,
> with no response.
>
You need to insist. A week is normally considered an acceptable interva
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-20 22:36 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Manuel: thanks for volunteering to write a patch.
>
> I've just spoken with Joseph Myers (a friend of mine who does gcc development
> work), and his opinion was that t
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-20 23:21 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I think the point Ian was trying to make with (3) was simply that it doesn't
> matter whether you choose to implement the reports of unknown -Wno-* (ie (2))
> using the ex
--- 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
--- Comment #18 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-16 15:30 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Created an attachment (id=13214)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13214&action=view) [edit]
> extended patch against gcc-4.2
>
Hi Pawel,
if the bug ex
--- Comment #20 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-16 16:13 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> (In reply to comment #18)
>
> > The patch needs testcases,
>
> i have a testcase but my tcl/autogen/dejagnu crashes
> with magic `spawn failed' message :/
>
--- Comment #22 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-20 19:01 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg01343.html
>
Hint, if you use the patch queue[1], it takes care of adding a comment pointing
to the patch. Also, your patch lacks a Cha
--- Comment #14 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-15 15:36 ---
Trying to improve the summary to help spot duplicates.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-17 09:17 ---
This seems to me a duplicate of PR179. I am going to add a dependency to
remember to check this PR when PR179 gets fixed.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
44 matches
Mail list logo
