On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/20/2016 01:18 PM, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>>
>> (reposting in gcc@ and adding more information)
>>
>> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Andres Tiraboschi
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> While analysing this bug we arrived to the following code at
>>> tree.c:
On Fri, 20 May 2016, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Given this, I do not understand why GCC does not treat implicit int as
> a hard error.
Because in C the existing practice has been that we support the union of
all features and extensions that can sensibly be supported with the given
language version (
On Fri, 20 May 2016, Jeff Law wrote:
> I think it's worth revisiting as well, burying in -pedantic seems wrong given
> the kinds of failures we can see.
It's not in -pedantic. The warnings are on by default for C99/C11 (and
become errors with -pedantic-errors or the -Werror= options).
--
Jose
On 05/20/2016 01:18 PM, Daniel Gutson wrote:
(reposting in gcc@ and adding more information)
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Andres Tiraboschi
wrote:
While analysing this bug we arrived to the following code at
tree.c:145 (lvalue_kind):
case VAR_DECL:
if (TREE_READONLY (ref) && ! T
(reposting in gcc@ and adding more information)
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Andres Tiraboschi
wrote:
> While analysing this bug we arrived to the following code at
> tree.c:145 (lvalue_kind):
>
> case VAR_DECL:
> if (TREE_READONLY (ref) && ! TREE_STATIC (ref)
> && DECL_LANG_S
On 05/20/2016 03:24 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 05/20/2016 11:22 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Florian Weimer writes:
C99 got rid of implicit function definitions and implicit ints.
Would it
be possible to remove them retroactively from the -std=gnu99 and
-std=gnu11 language variants (as well as
On 19 May 2016 at 13:19, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 18 May 2016 at 19:38, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Wed, 18 May 2016, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 17 May 2016 at 18:36, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 11 May 2016, Pratham
On 05/20/2016 11:22 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Florian Weimer writes:
C99 got rid of implicit function definitions and implicit ints. Would it
be possible to remove them retroactively from the -std=gnu99 and
-std=gnu11 language variants (as well as -std=c99 and -std=c11), so that
they are reje
Florian Weimer writes:
> C99 got rid of implicit function definitions and implicit ints. Would it
> be possible to remove them retroactively from the -std=gnu99 and
> -std=gnu11 language variants (as well as -std=c99 and -std=c11), so that
> they are rejected by default?
-Werror=implicit-int -W
On 05/20/2016 10:02 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 05/20/2016 10:30 AM, lh mouse wrote:
>> Implicit function declarations result in warnings since C99 or GNU99 and
>> '-pedantic-errors' turns them into errors.
>> The same goes for implicit return types.
>
> The warnings typically do not stop the
On 05/20/2016 10:30 AM, lh mouse wrote:
Implicit function declarations result in warnings since C99 or GNU99 and
'-pedantic-errors' turns them into errors.
The same goes for implicit return types.
The warnings typically do not stop the build, and thus are not really
helpful when you are looki
Implicit function declarations result in warnings since C99 or GNU99 and
'-pedantic-errors' turns them into errors.
The same goes for implicit return types.
--
Best regards,
lh_mouse
2016-05-20
--
I just spend an hour hunting down someone else's GCC code generation
bug, when it turned out it was caused by an implicit function
definition, where the real return type was incompatible with int.
C99 got rid of implicit function definitions and implicit ints. Would
it be possible to remove t
13 matches
Mail list logo
