Hi,
I don't understand, you supported my patch when i contributed it, which
performs exactly what you want ! Gengtype and gtype.state get installed in the
trunk for more than a month !
Romain.
Le 24 sept. 2011 à 17:09, Basile Starynkevitch a écrit :
> Hello All,
>
> As you probably know, ge
Quoting Gerald Pfeifer :
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011, Joern Rennecke wrote:
I agree that trying to track every library there would be a maintenance
burden, but giving one example of a library that works is meaningful.
And, since GCC is still a GNU project, mentioning the status of GNU libc
doesn't seem
On 24/09/2011 18:25, John Regehr wrote:
it. And while I think the compiler should be allowed to generate the
optimised code of 4.6 (i.e., the change is not a bug IMHO), I fully
understand the idea of generating the older, slower, but definitely
correct code of 4.5.
My understanding is that the
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 14:00:03 +0200
Romain Geissler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't understand, you supported my patch when i contributed it, which
> performs exactly what you want ! Gengtype and gtype.state get installed in
> the trunk for more than a month !
Sorry for the noise. Yes, gengtype is i
David Brown writes:
> There is a big difference between defining an object as "const", and
> merely declaring it as const or accessing it as const. When you access it
> as const, you are saying "/I/ won't change the object with this access".
> When you declare an object as const (such as an exte
On 25/09/2011 13:56, David Brown wrote:
> There is a big difference between defining an object as "const", and
> merely declaring it as const or accessing it as const. When you access
> it as const, you are saying "/I/ won't change the object with this
> access". When you declare an object as co
On 25/09/11 16:16, Andreas Schwab wrote:
David Brown writes:
There is a big difference between defining an object as "const", and
merely declaring it as const or accessing it as const. When you access it
as const, you are saying "/I/ won't change the object with this access".
When you declare
On 25/09/11 17:15, Dave Korn wrote:
On 25/09/2011 13:56, David Brown wrote:
There is a big difference between defining an object as "const", and
merely declaring it as const or accessing it as const. When you access
it as const, you are saying "/I/ won't change the object with this
access". W
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> ! "Library Issue" means that support may or may not be available depending
> ! on the C library used; for example, the GNU C library supports all C99
> ! features, provided _ISOC99_SOURCE and/or _GNU_SOURCE is defined in the
> ! source code or with a -D
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Attached.
Thanks, Jörn!
! "Library Issue" means that support may or may not be available depending
! on the C library used; for example, the GNU C library supports all C99
I suggest a full stop isntead of ";" before "for example" and to just
say "defi
Hello
Currently gcc, and g++ don't give a warning when a pointer was converted
to a bool, in the same way it is for other types.
Could I ask for opinion on this, and if I should create a bug ticket.
Please find below output from compilation, and attachments showing the
two tests.
gcc (Ubun
Hello
I am looking for a gcc option to give a warning when parameter names
don't match between the prototype in C, and the definition. Could
someone point me to the option if there is one please.
Example provided below, where "offset" miss-spelt "offest". (I found
-Wstrict-prototypes, but t
On 25 September 2011 23:49, Jon Grant wrote:
>
> I am looking for a gcc option to give a warning when parameter names don't
> match between the prototype in C, and the definition. Could someone point me
> to the option if there is one please.
This question is off-topic on this list which is about
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Joseph, how do you suggest to rephrase the note on activation?
> Just -std=c99 as an option to GCC which then triggers the appropriate
> #defines?
Yes.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
David Brown writes:
> So what advantages would there be in declaring a volatile buffer like
> this to be "const"? At best, you are helping the compiler check that
> you don't accidentally write to it in your own code.
That's actually pretty handy tho...
-Miles
--
Everywhere is walking distanc
Jon Grant writes:
> Currently gcc, and g++ don't give a warning when a pointer was
> converted to a bool, in the same way it is for other types.
There is a lot of code which uses
if (p)
where p is a pointer to test whether p is not NULL. I don't think we
could reasonably have gcc warn about
16 matches
Mail list logo
