On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 10:06 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 08:38:38PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 22:44 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > > Try -Werror-implicit-function-declaration. Not the same, but pretty
> > > close.
> >
> > Thanks! I know. In fact,
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 08:38:38PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 22:44 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > Try -Werror-implicit-function-declaration. Not the same, but pretty
> > close.
>
> Thanks! I know. In fact, I'm using at least "-Wall -Werror" for my
> code and for the c
On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 22:44 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't know much about gcc implementation, but if it's not hard to
> > check the context of the function call (or, alternatively, the
> > provenance of the integer that is about to be cast to
Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't know much about gcc implementation, but if it's not hard to
> check the context of the function call (or, alternatively, the
> provenance of the integer that is about to be cast to a pointer), I'll
> appreciate if this case is promoted to an error
Hello!
I've been bitten by a bug in some software I use every day (I didn't
write it, but it's a part of. When compiling it with gcc-4.1.1, I'm
getting tons of warnings, and the bug was triggering a warning too, I
think it should have been an error.
It's the case where the return value of an und
