[Bug c/94399] New: analyzer reports false positives for stuff freed using __attribute__((cleanup()))

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: zbyszek at in dot waw.pl Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 48142 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48142&action=edit test program $ rpm

[Bug tree-optimization/88835] overly aggressive -Werror=format-overflow for printf since r265648

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88835 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbyszek at in dot waw.pl

[Bug c/63499] gcc treats unknown -Wno-xxx options differently than -Wxxx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63499 --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- So, there's no way to programmatically check whether a flag is supported, without resorting to grepping the output or something like that. Great.

[Bug c/63499] gcc treats unknown -Wno-xxx options differently than -Wxxx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63499 --- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Ah, ok. Thanks.

[Bug c/63499] New: gcc treats unknown -Wno-xxx options differently than -Wxxx

Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: zbyszek at in dot waw.pl $ echo 'int main(){}' > test.c $ gcc -Wyyy test.c gcc: error: unrecognized command line option ‘-Wyyy’ $ gcc -Wno-yyy test.c && echo OK OK $ gcc

[Bug c/63498] spurious warning about unrecognized command line option "-Wno-typedef-redefinition"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63498 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolutio

[Bug c/63498] New: spurious warning about unrecognized command line option "-Wno-typedef-redefinition"

NCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: zbyszek at in dot waw.pl With the following program: # test.c int main(){} when compiled with 'gcc -Wall -Wno-typedef-redefinition test.c' I get two

[Bug c/61846] gcc assumes errno might be negative and issues unnecessary warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61846 --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > C99 also has this requirement. But C89 did not. The warnings are "best effort" anyway. So even if the standards did *not* say that, gcc could skip

[Bug c/61846] gcc assumes errno might be negative and issues unnecessary warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61846 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #33148|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c/61846] gcc assumes errno might be negative and issues unnecessary warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61846 --- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Created attachment 33151 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33151&action=edit processed source

[Bug c/61846] gcc assumes errno might be negative and issues unnecessary warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61846 --- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Created attachment 33150 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33150&action=edit compilation logs

[Bug c/61846] New: gcc assumes errno might be negative and issues unnecessary warning

Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: zbyszek at in dot waw.pl Created attachment 33148 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33148&action=edit sample program I see this a lot in systemd source code, wh

[Bug c/57137] spurious "format string is not literal" when the format string is marked with __attribute__((format))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57137 --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2013-05-02 02:02:18 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > What options are you using when calling gcc? Ah, I had it copied but forgot to paste... gcc -pipe -Wall -Wextra -Wno-inline -Wundef -Wformat

[Bug c/57137] spurious "format string is not literal" when the format string is marked with __attribute__((format))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57137 --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2013-05-01 16:24:32 UTC --- Created attachment 29989 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29989 minimal example

[Bug c/57137] spurious "format string is not literal" when the format string is marked with __attribute__((format))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57137 --- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2013-05-01 16:22:08 UTC --- Forgot to specify gcc version: gcc-4.8.0-2.fc19.x86_64

[Bug c/57137] spurious "format string is not literal" when the format string is marked with __attribute__((format))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57137 --- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2013-05-01 16:20:52 UTC --- Created attachment 29988 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29988 preprocessed example

[Bug c/57137] New: spurious "format string is not literal" when the format string is marked with __attribute__((format))

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57137 Bug #: 57137 Summary: spurious "format string is not literal" when the format string is marked with __attribute__((format)) Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.