Hi Martin,
On Sat, Nov 09, 2024 at 11:34:58AM GMT, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > > You can just eliminate the code for the star as it would now
> > > automatically end up as variable.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Have a lovely day!
> > Alex
>
> Just committed, so you could rebase on trunk now.
Thanks!
Am Samstag, dem 09.11.2024 um 11:29 +0100 schrieb Alejandro Colomar via Gcc:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2024 at 09:38:45AM GMT, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Am Samstag, dem 09.11.2024 um 00:54 +0100 schrieb Alejandro Colomar via Gcc:
> > > Hi Martin,
> > >
> > > I'm in the process of rebasing my __countof__ ch
Am Samstag, dem 09.11.2024 um 00:54 +0100 schrieb Alejandro Colomar via Gcc:
> Hi Martin,
>
> I'm in the process of rebasing my __countof__ changes after your patch
> that fixes support for [*] and [0].
>
> I should update the implementation of the following function:
>
> static bool
>
On Sat, Nov 09, 2024 at 09:38:45AM GMT, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Am Samstag, dem 09.11.2024 um 00:54 +0100 schrieb Alejandro Colomar via Gcc:
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > I'm in the process of rebasing my __countof__ changes after your patch
> > that fixes support for [*] and [0].
> >
> > I should update
Snapshot gcc-14-20241109 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/14-20241109/
and on various mirrors, see https://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 14 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
Hello, I don't know if this is a known GCC bug or intentional design,
but code like this:
double value = 0.0;
...
if (value == 0.0)
{
...
}
Results in the following warning with gcc-12.2.0:
"... warning: comparing floating-point with ‘==’ or ‘!=’ is unsafe"
Even though there is nothing
On Sat, Nov 9, 2024, 11:19 AM Sad Clouds via Gcc wrote:
> Hello, I don't know if this is a known GCC bug or intentional design,
> but code like this:
>
> double value = 0.0;
> ...
> if (value == 0.0)
> {
> ...
> }
>
> Results in the following warning with gcc-12.2.0:
>
> "... warning: com