https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
--- Comment #26 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #25)
> (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #6)
> > For:
> >
> > void f(){
> > int i = 2;
> > (i+i);
> > }
>
> This case is fixed on the trunk:
>
> : In functi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #25 from And
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
--- Comment #24 from nightstrike ---
Ah.. I missed Comment #13, the PR is still open because of a slightly different
test. In any case, if it worked in 4.8, it should be a regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.4 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.3 |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
GCC 4.9.3 has been released.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.2 |4.9.3
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.1 |4.9.2
--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.0 |4.9.1
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini ---
Yes, I know that. What I'm saying is that other code may want to see that
TREE_NO_WARNING honored, the issue doesn't have much to do with 54583 per se.
In my personal opinion removing a TREE_NO_WARNING check
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
--- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #15)
> I don't think you simply want a better fix for 54583, because for the
> testcase in #Comment 13 the new conditional setting TREE_NO_WARNING isn't
> used. Otherwise
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini ---
I don't think you simply want a better fix for 54583, because for the testcase
in #Comment 13 the new conditional setting TREE_NO_WARNING isn't used.
Otherwise, I think it would be easy to tighten it via arra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9 Regression] Missing|Missing "statement has no
16 matches
Mail list logo
