Hi Everyone,
We are tracking an issue on ppc64-le and GCC 8. We can duplicate it on
GCC112 when using /opt/cfarm/gcc8-r257824 compiler. Also see
https://github.com/weidai11/cryptopp/issues/588.
We have the issue isolated, but its not really reduced yet. When '-O2
-fstack-protector-strong' is used
__VA_OPT__ was documented after 7.3.0 and the eprintf example for it
ends with two backslashes instead of one:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Variadic-Macros.html
Regards,
Bogdan
I wonder why -Wsign-compare only warns when there is no int promotion?
No warning for this, where the result is “surprisingly” false because of int
promotion:
signed char i = (signed char) -3;
unsigned char j = (unsigned char) -3;
printf("i=%x j=%x i==j=%d\n", i, j, i==j);
gcc -Wsign-co
This question belongs on the gcc-help list really.
On 20 February 2018 at 14:44, Christophe de Dinechin
wrote:
> I wonder why -Wsign-compare only warns when there is no int promotion?
I suspect the correct-but-not-helpful answer is that after integer
promotion the operands have the same type, a
> On 20 Feb 2018, at 16:15, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> This question belongs on the gcc-help list really.
I posted here because I saw it as a possible diagnostic bug / limitation. Do
such things go to gcc-help? Or is it that you thought I was asking for the
correct option?
> On 20 February
On 20 February 2018 at 15:43, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
> I posted here because I saw it as a possible diagnostic bug / limitation. Do
> such things go to gcc-help? Or is it that you thought I was asking for the
> correct option?
Bug reports and enhancement requests go to bugzilla not here,
