https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85444
--- Comment #10 from Will Hawkins ---
Thanks for the feedback! I tried ignored-attributes but Mr. Meyers said that
was not an appropriate match. I think that I am going to have to go with adding
a completely separate category. This will be good p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85444
--- Comment #8 from Will Hawkins ---
Help!
Just wanted to let everyone know that I submitted a patch for this to
gcc-patches and got feedback. However, I need some help!
There's no consensus on the category that should contain this warning. I h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85361
Will Hawkins changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85361
--- Comment #4 from Will Hawkins ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #3)
> See the documentation of -std=, regarding base standards.
>
> # The compiler can accept several base standards, such as @samp{c90} or
> # @samp{c++98},
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85444
--- Comment #7 from Will Hawkins ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > Btw, it could maybe used to adjust mangling... (in C++, that is).
>
> I wish GCC supported doing that for class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85444
--- Comment #5 from Will Hawkins ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> For a start, patches go to the mailing list, not in bugzilla :-)
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
Thank you, Jonathan! I was confused by this when I fir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85444
--- Comment #4 from Will Hawkins ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Btw, it could maybe used to adjust mangling... (in C++, that is).
That is absolutely a possibility, if I only knew where to look :-) I found this
documentation:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85444
--- Comment #1 from Will Hawkins ---
Created attachment 43971
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43971&action=edit
Example that triggers the newly added warning when compiled with -Wpedantic
Example that triggers the newly adde
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: whh8b at virginia dot edu
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 43970
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43970&action=edit
Patch to add warning for ignored asm specifiers.
In a declaration like
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85361
Will Hawkins changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|WORKSFORME
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: whh8b at virginia dot edu
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 43914
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43914&action=edit
Code to trigger behavior.
In an attempt to fix bug 44209, I was investigating
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44209
Will Hawkins changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||whh8b at virginia dot edu
--- Comment #5
12 matches
Mail list logo
