https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115185
--- Comment #10 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
(In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #7)
> (In reply to Konstantin Kharlamov from comment #5)
> > So basically -Wc++-compat warns about every heap memory allocation, of which
> > there are doz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115185
--- Comment #5 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
(In reply to Konstantin Kharlamov from comment #3)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > It is included in -Wc++-compat .
>
> Cool, thanks! I'll add the warning to the list we compile the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115684
--- Comment #1 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
FWIW, IRL these cases happen during refactoring, when you factor out a code to
a smaller function, and some variables from the original function become
pointers. I honestly never even check the parame
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115684
Bug ID: 115684
Summary: No warning for pointer and enum field comparison
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115185
--- Comment #3 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> It is included in -Wc++-compat .
Cool, thanks! I'll add the warning to the list we compile the project with,
thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115185
Bug ID: 115185
Summary: Missing "too long" warning when string-array size
doesn't include NULL byte
Product: gcc
Version: 14.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97100
--- Comment #12 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #11)
> A conforming C compiler has to diagnose all violations of constraints with
> the same correct type of x in all branches (not the type it would have in
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97100
--- Comment #10 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
(In reply to uecker from comment #9)
> Some warnings are then even required to be standard compliant.
I just searched through the C standard and no warnings seem to be required by
it. The only place
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97100
--- Comment #8 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
(In reply to uecker from comment #7)
> Fundamentally, the program is that _Generic is not ideally designed for this
> use case.
Why?
> One could consider an extension
>
> _Generic(x, int i: f(i), l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111598
Bug ID: 111598
Summary: Wimplicit-fallthrough print for a code that is not
compiled in
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97100
Konstantin Kharlamov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Hi-Angel at yandex dot ru
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92559
--- Comment #5 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
(In reply to Konstantin Kharlamov from comment #4)
> By the way, FTR: I don't have the code anymore, but initially the problem
> came from a real-life algorithm involving lots of state, which looked ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92559
--- Comment #4 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
By the way, FTR: I don't have the code anymore, but initially the problem came
from a real-life algorithm involving lots of state, which looked barely
readable when implemented in iterative way (i.e. a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92559
--- Comment #3 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I don't think this can ever be optimized. Mainly because there are copies
> happening due to passing via value and returning by value.
Please correct me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101525
Bug ID: 101525
Summary: "out of the bounds" warning for an Innocuous memset
call with LTO
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92718
--- Comment #9 from Konstantin Kharlamov ---
Omg, I am sorry, please ignore my comment. For some incomprehensible reason
bugzilla circles through bug entries upon sending a comment. My comment here
was supposed for another report, but then appare
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92718
Konstantin Kharlamov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Hi-Angel at yandex dot ru
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93437
Konstantin Kharlamov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Hi-Angel at yandex dot ru
--- Com
18 matches
Mail list logo
