https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81582
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81582
--- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
With -fdirectives-only locations go bananas:
#include
int f1 (int x)
{
switch (x)
{
case 1: x++; // FALLTHRU
case 2: x--; /* FALLTHRU */
case 3: x++; // line #9
case 4: return x;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81582
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The reason it is shown in the diagnostics is that the diagnostic code opens the
original, non-preprocessed source (if available) and prints the line from
there.
If you don't have the source around, say compil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81582
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> If you are preprocessing without -C and without -fdirectives-only, then
> comments are gone, so you really can't use them to inhibit the warning.
Yes, so -Wim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81582
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
If you are preprocessing without -C and without -fdirectives-only, then
comments are gone, so you really can't use them to inhibit the warning.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81582
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81582
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81582
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Or avoid using comments and use attributes instead. This is all documented.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81582
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81582
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
10 matches
Mail list logo
