https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91547
--- Comment #5 from Vitali ---
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91547
Vitali changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vlovich at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102051
--- Comment #1 from Vitali ---
Tested via godbolt on 11 & 12.
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vlovich at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 51353
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51353&action=edit
The preprocessed file that cau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87951
--- Comment #17 from Vitali ---
I was explicitly asked to open this as a separate bug in comment #7 of 87950.
Would be helpful if the GCC devs could coordinate to figure out if they want
separate bugs for C/C++ or 1 bug.
Jonathan, on this forum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87951
--- Comment #5 from Vitali ---
Jonathan, I think the defect report here does actually apply to this example. I
agree the argument could be made that if there's gaps in the enum values that
it's arguable that the current GCC behaviour is standards
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87951
--- Comment #4 from Vitali ---
Is there a way to annotate a specific enum as strict?
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vlovich at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
If a function has a single switch statement that handles all enum values &
returns a value GCC will warn about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
Vitali changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
Vitali changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950
--- Comment #2 from Vitali ---
Why has clang made a different decision? Also, this warning is present in C++
code too.
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: vlovich at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Noticed this for a while. If a function has a single switch statement that
handles all enum values & returns a v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #16 from Vitali ---
Yup - I caught that on a self code-review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #14 from Vitali ---
Actually, found a better workaround for lapacke.
Adding
#include
#define lapack_complex_float std::complex
#define lapack_complex_double std::complex
before I include causes lapacke.h to avoid including complex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #12 from Vitali ---
Actually, http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/header seems to indicate that when
compiling as C++, complex.h should be equal to including ccomplex in a global
namespace. It seems like the inclusion of C99 complex.h i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
Vitali changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vlovich at gmail dot com
--- Comment #11 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62154
Vitali changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vlovich at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from
17 matches
Mail list logo
