https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25509
--- Comment #35 from Filipe Brandenburger ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comments)
Don't worry, I got what you mean...
Though I don't think coming up with code to fix it is the issue here, in
comment #10 a patch was provided (which a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25509
--- Comment #34 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #33)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #32)
> > (In reply to Filipe Brandenburger from comment #31)
> > > gcc should catch up.
> >
> > I tho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25509
--- Comment #33 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #32)
> (In reply to Filipe Brandenburger from comment #31)
> > gcc should catch up.
>
> I thought Google employed some capable C/C++ engineers...
What I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25509
--- Comment #32 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Filipe Brandenburger from comment #31)
> gcc should catch up.
I thought Google employed some capable C/C++ engineers...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25509
Filipe Brandenburger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||filbranden at google dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25509
--- Comment #30 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Paul Pluzhnikov from comment #28)
> P.S. Some of the bugs I found were in parts of the code imported from
> open-source projects, so it's not a problem that is specific to just Google.
> I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25509
--- Comment #29 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Paul Pluzhnikov from comment #28)
> Well, that did expose the 30 bugs above, but unfortunately I can't do that
> permanently, because it also exposed this false positive:
>
>assert(v.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25509
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot com
--- Comm
--- Comment #27 from ericb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-30 21:09 ---
See:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11959
for the glibc side of this bug (namely, fwrite() shouldn't be tagged wur).
--
ericb at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #26 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-30 15:00
---
(In reply to comment #25)
> > > gcc currently has no middle option.
> >
> > Also this attribute is not on by default in glibc so you are asking to
> > turn on the style based warnings.
>
> (In reply to comment
--- Comment #25 from bkorb at gnu dot org 2010-08-30 14:42 ---
> > gcc currently has no middle option.
>
> Also this attribute is not on by default in glibc so you are asking to
> turn on the style based warnings.
(In reply to comment #24)
> FIXED in GCC 4.5
After having waded throu
--- Comment #24 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-10 07:29 ---
FIXED in GCC 4.5
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #23 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-10 07:27 ---
Subject: Bug 25509
Author: manu
Date: Fri Jul 10 07:27:32 2009
New Revision: 149458
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149458
Log:
2009-07-10 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR 25509
PR
--- Comment #22 from fche at redhat dot com 2008-11-22 18:35 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Sent from my iPhone
Good to know.
> > GCC should not be trying to micromanage coding styles - either of
> > the rest of gnu software or anywhere else, but at least until you
> > clean up ever
--- Comment #21 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2008-11-22 17:17 ---
Subject: Re: can't disable __attribute__((warn_unused_result))
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 22, 2008, at 7:42 AM, "thomas at mich dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
> --- Comment #20 from thomas at mich do
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 22, 2008, at 7:42 AM, "thomas at mich dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
--- Comment #20 from thomas at mich dot com 2008-11-22 15:42
---
There minimally needs to be a way of turning this warning off in GCC.
GCC should not be trying to micromanage
--- Comment #20 from thomas at mich dot com 2008-11-22 15:42 ---
There minimally needs to be a way of turning this warning off in GCC.
GCC should not be trying to micromanage coding styles - either of the rest of
gnu software or anywhere else, but at least until you clean up every bit o
--- Comment #19 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-10-17 16:55
---
Subject: Re: can't disable __attribute__((warn_unused_result))
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> > In the case of fwrite, for example, the only obvious case where checking
> > would be useles
--- Comment #18 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-10-17 15:48 ---
> In the case of fwrite, for example, the only obvious case where checking
> would be useless is if you already are writing an error message before
> exiting with error status and so an error writing the error message cou
--- Comment #17 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2008-10-17 15:31
---
Subject: Re: can't disable __attribute__((warn_unused_result))
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> It does not matter if it is a "security" issue; if void-ifying is not an
> acceptable workaroun
--- Comment #16 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2008-10-17 11:40 ---
It does not matter if it is a "security" issue; if void-ifying is not an
acceptable workaround, there must be at the very least a Wno-* option to
disable it.
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Remov
21 matches
Mail list logo
