[Bug c++/33501] New: Copy constructor assumed to exist for undefined class

[ciobi at inbox dot com]

t: gcc
   Version: 4.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
      Priority: P3
         Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ciobi at inbox dot com
 GCC build triplet: x86_64-suse-linux
  GCC host triplet: x86_64-suse-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-suse-linux


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33501

[Bug c/37648] New: Incorrect warning "flag ignored with precision" in printf

[ciobi at inbox dot com]

Consider this program:

-- a.c 
#include 

int main()
{
int a = 10;
printf("%d\n", a);
printf("%0.4d\n", a);
return 0;
}

---

By compiling with:
gcc -Wall a.c
This warning gets displayed:
a.c:7: warning: '0' flag ignored with precision and ‘%d’ printf format

The '0' flag isn't actually ignored, and it shouldn't be anyway, so I think the
warning is incorrect.

==

More details:

I found this on 4.2.1, but I also tried it on 4.1.0 and 4.3.1, and the result
is the same.

Both gcc and g++ show the warning (initially I found this in a C++ project and
then I checked to see if C code exhibits the same issue).


-- 
   Summary: Incorrect warning "flag ignored with precision" in
printf
   Product: gcc
   Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ciobi at inbox dot com
 GCC build triplet: x86_64-suse-linux
  GCC host triplet: x86_64-suse-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-suse-linux


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37648

[Bug c/37648] Incorrect warning "flag ignored with precision" in printf

[ciobi at inbox dot com]

--- Comment #2 from ciobi at inbox dot com  2008-09-29 14:30 ---
Sorry. The reason I said that the '0' flag was not actually ignored was that I
was sure that without it the padding would be done with spaces rather than '0'.

I guess some time ago I was using a compiler where the only way to get
0-padding was with "%0.4d" ; "%.4d" produced space-padding and I'm not sure
what "%04d" did, but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't what I wanted. So that's
how I remembered that "it must be done". When reporting the "bug" I just
assumed that "%.4d" would use space padding, and I figured that the fact that I
was getting 0-padding from "%0.4d" was due to the use of 0, which now I see
that is not true.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37648

[Bug c++/41427] New: variables with the same name as a "for" variable should be invalid

[ciobi at inbox dot com]

Consider this code:

void f1()
{
for (int i = 0;;)
int i;
}

void f2()
{
for (int i = 0;;)
{
int i;
}
}

void f3()
{
for (int i = 0;;)
{
{
int i;
}
}
}

Only f3() should compile, yet f1() and f2() compile too.

While f1() seems wrong without giving it much thought, f2() is wrong as well,
due to 6.4/3 (which seems a bit at odds with 6.5.3)

I tested 4.3.3 and 4.4.0

This issue was found during a port to MSVC, and was covered here:
http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=489105


-- 
   Summary: variables with the same name as a "for" variable should
be invalid
   Product: gcc
   Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ciobi at inbox dot com
 GCC build triplet: x86_64-suse-linux
  GCC host triplet: x86_64-suse-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-suse-linux


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41427