https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #54 from Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer ---
Many thanks for finally fixing this!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||f.heckenb...@fh-soft.de
--- Comment #53 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #51 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e46f4d7430c5210465791603735ab219ef263c51
commit r13-1544-ge46f4d7430c5210465791603735ab219ef263c51
Author: Lewis Hyatt
Date: Tue J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at behdad dot org
--- Comment #50 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #49 from Lewis Hyatt ---
I rebased the patches so they apply to the current master branch and pinged
them on gcc-patches here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-May/595556.html
-Lewis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andre.schackier at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #47 from Lewis Hyatt ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #46)
> If you don't get much attention to the patch, it may be worth pinging it.
> But before that, I would also suggest submitting all the cleanups separately
> a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #46 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Lewis Hyatt from comment #44)
> I hope this looks workable, happy to adjust the patch as needed.
If you don't get much attention to the patch, it may be worth pinging it. But
before that,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lh_mouse at 126 dot com
--- Comment #45
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Lewis Hyatt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lhyatt at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #44
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||allan.chandler at oakton dot
com.a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #42
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tobi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #40 from Jeffrey Walton ---
Still a problem in 2021.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #39 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Nickolay Kolchin-Semyonov from comment #38)
> Since this is a long standing problem, maybe this limitation should be
> mentioned in official documentation?
Maybe... although, if documented, peo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #38 from Nickolay Kolchin-Semyonov ---
Since this is a long standing problem, maybe this limitation should be
mentioned in official documentation?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #37 from Jonathan Wakely ---
From PR 89806:
Sample code:
#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wdate-time"
const char* g_test = "dirty-" __DATE__;
When compiling with g++ (g++ -Werror=date-time) this produces:
:2:31: error: macro "__DA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nbkolchin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ulidtko at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Robert J. Simpson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||robert.simpson.lists@gmail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davydden at gmail dot com
--- Comment #33
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||damien at iwi dot me
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||akim.demaille at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Hamlet <_hamlet at libero dot it> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||_hamlet at libero dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||TrevorJamesHickey at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #25 from Jeffrey Walton ---
Jonathan, Manuel, et al -
I'm putting this to bed on our side. We've re-enabled -Wall, and are moving
towards -Wextra.
I did come up with one more use case... The "unused parameter" warning.
Typically, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #24 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #23)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #21)
> > Now that you posted a complete example here:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2015-07/msg00070.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #23 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #21)
> Now that you posted a complete example here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2015-07/msg00070.html you seem to actually
> be hitting PR66290, not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #22 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #18)
> ...
> Or you could just change the code causing the warnings.
Fair enough.
There are two warnings that are big offenders. First is the "unused variable"
wa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #21 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #14)
> (In reply to Jeffrey Walton from comment #13)
> > #if GCC_DIAGNOSTIC_AWARE
> > # pragma GCC diagnostic push
> > # pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #20 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #19)
> For what is worth, anyone please feel free to take my WIP patch in comment
> #10 and get it finished. You may also claim for yourself any bounty or
> com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #19 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
For what is worth, anyone please feel free to take my WIP patch in comment #10
and get it finished. You may also claim for yourself any bounty or compensation
that may derive from it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You can't control what warnings users enable, but that's no reason not to use
-Wall -Wno-unused yourself when building cryptopp. Not polluting you command
line seems like a weak excuse given the pollution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #17 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15)
> (In reply to Jeffrey Walton from comment #13)
> > This issued caused Crypto++ to remove -Wall (and above) under GCC.
>
> That seems to be throwing the baby
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #16 from Jeffrey Walton ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15)
> (In reply to Jeffrey Walton from comment #13)
> > This issued caused Crypto++ to remove -Wall (and above) under GCC.
>
> That seems to be throwing the baby
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jeffrey Walton from comment #13)
> This issued caused Crypto++ to remove -Wall (and above) under GCC.
That seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why not simply use
-Wall -Wn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jeffrey Walton from comment #13)
> #if GCC_DIAGNOSTIC_AWARE
> # pragma GCC diagnostic push
> # pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wunused-value"
> # pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wunused-va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #13 from Jeffrey Walton ---
This issued caused Crypto++ to remove -Wall (and above) under GCC. Crypto++ is
C++ with lots of interfaces, and it performs a fair amount of intermediate
calculations used in an assert. It really needed the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Allan Chandler from comment #11)
> Now you've done it. This was reported over three years ago and now it's
> affected someone on Stack Overflow. You guys are in for it now :-)
Unfortunate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Allan Chandler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||allan.chandler at oakton dot
com.a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Created attachment 35688
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35688&action=edit
WIP patch
A WIP patch. I took a different approach: Move the handling of the pragma to
the preprocessor.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #5)
> The C++ parser lexes (and preprocesses) before handling the pragmas, whereas
> the C parser processes the pragmas as it sees them.
>
> We must someho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bero at arklinux dot org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ruslan_baratov at yahoo dot com
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||scottbaldwin at gmail dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
--- Comment #4 from George Galeev ---
Guys, how to get a look at this bug? I'm tired of reading 100500 warnings from
third-party libraries.
GCC-4.6, GCC-4.7, GCC-4.8, C++11
Gentoo Linux x86-64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Fabio changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nomegenerico at email dot it
--- Comment #3 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at oberhumer dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
George Galeev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rainarchitect at gmail dot
55 matches
Mail list logo