--- Comment #62 from l dot lunak at suse dot cz 2008-11-19 22:41 ---
(In reply to comment #60)
> -fno-exceptions is a big hammer. It will break exceptions trying to
> pass through code compiled with that flag whether or not that code has
> any try/catch constructs. If you m
--- Comment #34 from l dot lunak at suse dot cz 2007-04-24 10:54 ---
I think the reason why the discussion here is so complicated is that you
libstdc++ people are, because of exception_defines.h, confused about what
-fno-exceptions actually does. From comment #15: "Then, why wh
--- Comment #39 from l dot lunak at suse dot cz 2007-04-27 14:41 ---
I find the reasoning that this change should not be done because somebody
possibly might be using the libstdc++'s different semantics of try/catch rather
weak, for several reasons:
- it's not documented an
--- Comment #56 from l dot lunak at suse dot cz 2008-09-24 08:50 ---
(In reply to comment #55)
> It seems reasonable to me for try { X } catch... to mean X when
> -fno-exceptions. We don't need to error except on throw.
It seems unreasonable to me that gcc would silently mo
--- Comment #59 from l dot lunak at suse dot cz 2008-09-25 09:56 ---
(In reply to comment #58)
> >> It seems reasonable to me for try { X } catch... to mean X when
> >> -fno-exceptions. We don't need to error except on throw.
> >
> > It seems unreaso
dot org
ReportedBy: l dot lunak at suse dot cz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35669
--- Comment #2 from l dot lunak at suse dot cz 2008-03-22 23:15 ---
When you say the warning is wrong, you presumably mean "passing argument 1 of
foo makes integer from pointer without a cast", but this bugreport is about
(the absence of) "passing NULL to non-pointe
--- Comment #6 from l dot lunak at suse dot cz 2008-03-23 20:16 ---
> Hmm, 2*0.5 should be folded pretty early so Wconversion should see 1.0 which
> can be converted exactly to an integer (I think), so there should be no
> warning whatsoever. Are you sure you are using GCC 4.3?
--- Comment #11 from l dot lunak at suse dot cz 2009-04-29 13:21 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> As a consequence, since NULL can not in an obvious way be a pointer, there is
> no obvious warning that can be generated.
Of course there is. NULL with gcc is not 0, 0L or (void*)0,
--- Comment #18 from l dot lunak at suse dot cz 2010-02-14 21:47 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Which one? We are not going to warn for conversions to boolean and we are not
> going to warn for explicit conversions.
I don't see anybody asking for that.
> And we are not
--- Comment #16 from l dot lunak at suse dot cz 2010-02-16 12:47 ---
Created an attachment (id=19887)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19887&action=view)
testcase from kdesdk/umbrello
If it helps, here's another testcase where 2G RAM is not enough. This i
11 matches
Mail list logo
