[Bug c/116082] -Wunterminated-string-initialization should not warn about strings that end with "\0" but should warn still for -Wc++-compat

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116082 --- Comment #13 from Steffen Nurpmeso --- I am!! *Luckily* nothing before 2010/1 (ie anything C++) uses this notation! Thank you. (godbolt.org is an interesting link, thanks.)

[Bug c/116082] -Wunterminated-string-initialization should not warn about strings that end with "\0" but should warn still for -Wc++-compat

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116082 --- Comment #11 from Steffen Nurpmeso --- I had reverted to 14.2.0. Alejandro, the NUL is not "embedded", it "terminates". *OR* at least this is what i am used to; for me this is a string literal. Also to uecker who moves the camel through the

[Bug c/116082] -Wunterminated-string-initialization should not warn about strings that end with "\0" but should warn still for -Wc++-compat

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116082 --- Comment #5 from Steffen Nurpmeso --- different to some other comments i think this is plain a bug in gcc. C99, 6.7.8 p21, and C23 is not different (here 6.7.10 p22; disclaimer: i have not truly read any standard beyond C99, though!!) want ``

[Bug c/116082] -Wunterminated-string-initialization should not warn about strings that end with "\0" but should warn still for -Wc++-compat

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116082 Steffen Nurpmeso changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steffen at sdaoden dot eu

[Bug c++/85128] Local scope type(def) falsely assumed to change meaning of outer scope type(def)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85128 --- Comment #12 from Steffen Nurpmeso --- Or you could compile with -std=c++98 Yes, thanks for the opportunity. I would rather not, the fix was simple and only affected this class and its specializations (of 383, 315 public interface). > (

[Bug c++/85128] Local scope type(def) falsely assumed to change meaning of outer scope type(def)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85128 --- Comment #10 from Steffen Nurpmeso --- Hello Andrew Pinski! Ok i have to apologize for not searching in Bugzilla very carefully it seems. I see now, indeed i was -- even if that sounds inconceivable -- under the impression that the error mess

[Bug c++/34531] local typedef conflicts with global definition of a type having the same name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34531 --- Comment #7 from Steffen Nurpmeso --- Hello Andrew Pinski! Ok i have to apologize for not searching in Bugzilla very carefully it seems. I see now, indeed i was -- even if that sounds inconceivable -- under the impression that the error messa

[Bug c++/85128] Local scope type(def) falsely assumed to change meaning of outer scope type(def)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85128 --- Comment #5 from Steffen Nurpmeso --- Sorry for not providing a test case. The C++ standard is clear here about this case too. I have a PDF version of a 2014 draft, and i would not see that in case your words are implying that gcc is righ

[Bug c++/85128] Local scope type(def) falsely assumed to change meaning of outer scope type(def)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85128 --- Comment #3 from Steffen Nurpmeso --- One more, and just to point that out. This code will in a not too distant future see its 20th birthday (though not updated for long). It has been developed on Linux and FreeBSD with the wonderful (me thi

[Bug c++/85128] Local scope type(def) falsely assumed to change meaning of outer scope type(def)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85128 --- Comment #2 from Steffen Nurpmeso --- Excuse me please, but in how far is namespace X{ class A; class B; } class X::A{..}; class X::B { typedef X::A A; } invalid C++? Which standard added that??

[Bug c++/85128] New: Local scope type(def) falsely assumed to change meaning of outer scope type(def)

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: steffen at sdaoden dot eu Target Milestone: --- Hi, my first post here. So i have no idea, all i can say is what the subject says, that clang gets it right, and here is