On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 12:52, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 10:30, Sunil Kumar Dora
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear GCC Community,
> > I am currently encountering an issue with the -Wrange-loop-construct
> > warning in GCC version 14, as well as in earlier versions. It appears that
On Fri, 13 Sept 2024 at 10:30, Sunil Kumar Dora
wrote:
>
> Dear GCC Community,
> I am currently encountering an issue with the -Wrange-loop-construct warning
> in GCC version 14, as well as in earlier versions. It appears that the
> warning is triggered incorrectly for certain loop constructs.
>
Dear GCC Community,
I am currently encountering an issue with the -Wrange-loop-construct warning in
GCC version 14, as well as in earlier versions. It appears that the warning is
triggered incorrectly for certain loop constructs.
Issue Details:
I have tested the following code, which produces a w
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 1 April 2014 15:00, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>>> For regressions, yes, but I don't think this is a regression.
>>
>> Why not? (I don't know the criteria, please let me know).
>
> Did it work in previous versions?
>
> A regression means someth
On 1 April 2014 15:00, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>> For regressions, yes, but I don't think this is a regression.
>
> Why not? (I don't know the criteria, please let me know).
Did it work in previous versions?
A regression means something that used to work no longer works.
> Upcoming Ubuntu LTS will
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 1 April 2014 14:43, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>>
>> The attached patch attempts to fix this issue. Since I no longer have
>> write access, please
>> apply this for me if correct (is the 4.8 branch still alive for adding
>> fixes?).
>
> For r
On 1 April 2014 14:43, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>
> The attached patch attempts to fix this issue. Since I no longer have
> write access, please
> apply this for me if correct (is the 4.8 branch still alive for adding
> fixes?).
For regressions, yes, but I don't think this is a regression.
> Regardi
Hi,
I observed two different behaviors in gcc 4.8.2 and 4.9 regarding
the same issue, IMO both erroneous.
Regarding 4.8.2, #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-pedantic" doesn't
work in cases such as:
void* p = 0;
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-pedantic"
F* f2 = reinterpret_cast(p);
(se
Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Try -Wextra.
Ah thanks! I have already lost time several times due to this
almost invisible mistake and I didn't know -Wextra would catch it.
However, it seems to only work for the C compiler, not for C++.
(Using GCC 3.4.4)
(Oops, sorry Andreas, I actually meant to only
Ivan Novick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How come the following code would not be considered a Warning?
Try -Wextra.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D
Ivan Novick wrote:
Hello,
How come the following code would not be considered a Warning?
Surely there is no possible way this would be intentional?
if (x<4);
x++;
When you consider macro expansion, it could:
#if SIZEOF_LONG == 4
#define WARN_FOR_BIG_VALUES \
printf ("hey, x is too
Hello,
How come the following code would not be considered a Warning?
Surely there is no possible way this would be intentional?
if (x<4);
x++;
Cheers,
Ivan
12 matches
Mail list logo
