On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> On 05/01/17 17:54, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Bernd Edlinger
>> wrote:
>>> On 04/28/17 17:29, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 04/28/2017 08:12 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
> Do you want me to change the %qT f
On 05/01/17 17:54, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
>> On 04/28/17 17:29, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> On 04/28/2017 08:12 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Do you want me to change the %qT format strings to %T ?
>>>
>>> Yes, with the surrounding %< and
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> On 04/28/17 17:29, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 04/28/2017 08:12 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you want me to change the %qT format strings to %T ?
>>
>> Yes, with the surrounding %< and %> the nested directives should
>> use the unquote
On 04/28/17 17:29, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 04/28/2017 08:12 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>
>> Do you want me to change the %qT format strings to %T ?
>
> Yes, with the surrounding %< and %> the nested directives should
> use the unquoted forms, otherwise the printer would end up quoting
> both the w
On 04/28/2017 08:12 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 04/28/17 00:52, Martin Sebor wrote:
I suggest avoiding "element size" because the pointed-to argument
need not be an array. Mentioning the types should help users better
understand the problem (especially in C++ where types are often
obscured by
On 04/28/17 00:52, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> I suggest avoiding "element size" because the pointed-to argument
>>> need not be an array. Mentioning the types should help users better
>>> understand the problem (especially in C++ where types are often
>>> obscured by layers of templates). It might a
I suggest avoiding "element size" because the pointed-to argument
need not be an array. Mentioning the types should help users better
understand the problem (especially in C++ where types are often
obscured by layers of templates). It might also be a nice touch
to add a note pointing to the decl
On 04/22/17 01:50, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 04/20/2017 02:35 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>
>> This implements a new -Wall enabled warning for a rather common, but
>> completely wrong way to compute an array size by dividing the
>> sizeof(pointer) / sizeof(pointer[0]) or sizeof(*pointer).
>
On 04/20/2017 02:35 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi!
This implements a new -Wall enabled warning for a rather common, but
completely wrong way to compute an array size by dividing the
sizeof(pointer) / sizeof(pointer[0]) or sizeof(*pointer).
It is often hard to find this kind of error by simple c
