https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65331
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Petrov ---
UPD: it appears that bug doesn't related to PRI* format specifiers:
-m64:
printf("%lu\n", value); // usigned long value:31 => error (ok)
printf("%lu\n", value); // usigned long value:33 => error (not ok IMHO)
ormal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmitry.petroff at gmail dot com
Created attachment 34976
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34976&action=edit
compile with gcc -Werror=format
Hi.
I&#x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62282
--- Comment #11 from Dmitry Petrov ---
>Which of the above mentioned semantics you want for your inlines?
Semantics that would allow me get code that links even with -O0 without need to
dublicate function body.
I can understand how this code can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62282
Dmitry Petrov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62282
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Petrov ---
Created attachment 33408
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33408&action=edit
g++ + gperf bug in action
Guys, I'm software developer myself and I can understand your attitute to
"declare bu
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dmitry.petroff at gmail dot com
The following code produces "undefined reference to `test(int)'" message when
compiled with g++ -O0 test.cpp:
// == cut ==
__inlin
