Done!
On 30 March 2015 at 23:23, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Hi Manuel,
>
> sorry for the late reply, I was travelling last week.
> My account name is: MartinUecker
>
> Martin
>
>
> Manuel López-Ibáñez :
>
>> Martin,
>>
>> did you manage to create a wiki account?
>>
>> I can add you to the editors g
Hi Manuel,
sorry for the late reply, I was travelling last week.
My account name is: MartinUecker
Martin
Manuel López-Ibáñez :
> Martin,
>
> did you manage to create a wiki account?
>
> I can add you to the editors group then.
>
> On 27 January 2015 at 22:54, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Am T
Martin,
did you manage to create a wiki account?
I can add you to the editors group then.
On 27 January 2015 at 22:54, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Am Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:15:08 -0500
> "Frank Ch. Eigler" :
>
>> Hi -
>>
>> > > thank you, I tried creating an account, but it said: Unknown action
>> > >
Am Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:15:08 -0500
"Frank Ch. Eigler" :
> Hi -
>
> > > thank you, I tried creating an account, but it said: Unknown action
> > > newaccount.
> > Frank, do you know what the problem might be?
>
> Yes, this facility was temporarily disabled, as a load-shedding
> measure. I'll tur
Hi -
> > thank you, I tried creating an account, but it said: Unknown action
> > newaccount.
> Frank, do you know what the problem might be?
Yes, this facility was temporarily disabled, as a load-shedding
measure. I'll turn it back on for a few hours.
- FChE
On 27 January 2015 at 18:31, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
>
> Manuel López-Ibáñez :
>
>> On 26 January 2015 at 19:15, Martin Uecker wrote:
>> >
>> > Since my patch to change this has been accepted, could you please
>> > update the FAQ again?
>>
>> Done. Moreover, if you create a wiki account, I will gr
Manuel López-Ibáñez :
> On 26 January 2015 at 19:15, Martin Uecker wrote:
> >
> > Since my patch to change this has been accepted, could you please
> > update the FAQ again?
>
> Done. Moreover, if you create a wiki account, I will grant you editing powers.
thank you, I tried creating an accou
On 26 January 2015 at 19:15, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Since my patch to change this has been accepted, could you please
> update the FAQ again?
Done. Moreover, if you create a wiki account, I will grant you editing powers.
> Also, I think the change could be mentioned here:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.o
Manuel López-Ibáñez :
> On 14 October 2014 01:12, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Converting a pointer to an array to a pointer to a constant array
> > is safe. Converting a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to a pointer
> > to a constant is not (as the CFAQ points out).
>
> You are probably right tha
Hi,
attached is a revised and extended patch. Changes with respect
to the previous patch are:
- warn if qualifiers are lost for pointers to multi-dimensional arrays
- warn if qualifiers are lost when converting to void*
- warnings for _Atomic are preserved
- qualifiers are not lost in condit
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Martin Uecker wrote:
> 3.9.3(5) ...
> Cv-qualifiers applied to an array type attach to the
> underlying element type, so the notation "cv T," where
> T is an array type, refers to an array whose elements
> are so-qualified. Such array types can be said to be
> more (or less) c
Jonathan Wakely :
> On 27 October 2014 13:10, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Oct 2014, Martin Uecker wrote:
> >
> >> Strictly speaking the C standard considers such pointers to be
> >> incompatible. This seems to be an unintentional consequence
> >> of how qualifiers are always attached to
On 27 October 2014 13:10, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2014, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
>> Strictly speaking the C standard considers such pointers to be
>> incompatible. This seems to be an unintentional consequence
>> of how qualifiers are always attached to the element type.
>> (I am tryi
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Strictly speaking the C standard considers such pointers to be
> incompatible. This seems to be an unintentional consequence
> of how qualifiers are always attached to the element type.
> (I am trying to get the standard revised too.) The new
> behavi
This patch implements a new proposed behaviour of diagnostics for
pointers to arrays with qualifiers in C:
- No warning about 'incompatible pointer types' for pointers
to arrays with different qualifiers.
- Instead, there is a new warning activated only with
'-pedantic': "pointers to ar
Manuel López-Ibáñez :
> On 14 October 2014 01:12, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Converting a pointer to an array to a pointer to a constant array
> > is safe. Converting a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to a pointer
> > to a constant is not (as the CFAQ points out).
>
> You are probably right that
On 14 October 2014 01:12, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Converting a pointer to an array to a pointer to a constant array
> is safe. Converting a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to a pointer
> to a constant is not (as the CFAQ points out).
You are probably right that it is safe. Unfortunately, C consi
Am Tue, 14 Oct 2014 00:05:47 +0100
Jonathan Wakely :
> On 14 October 2014 00:01, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Manuel López-Ibáñez :
> >
> > Thank you for your quick response.
> >
> >> > Could we have an option to turn these warnings off?
> >>
> >> This will be controlled by a new option in GCC 5.0.
>
Manuel López-Ibáñez :
> > Could we have an option to turn these warnings off?
>
> This will be controlled by a new option in GCC 5.0.
>
> For the details and the answer to your other questions, see
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#constmismatch
>
> (If others have comments that are not covered in
On 14 October 2014 00:01, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Manuel López-Ibáñez :
>
> Thank you for your quick response.
>
>> > Could we have an option to turn these warnings off?
>>
>> This will be controlled by a new option in GCC 5.0.
>>
>> For the details and the answer to your other questions, see
>> htt
Manuel López-Ibáñez :
Thank you for your quick response.
> > Could we have an option to turn these warnings off?
>
> This will be controlled by a new option in GCC 5.0.
>
> For the details and the answer to your other questions, see
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#constmismatch
The option '-Win
> Could we have an option to turn these warnings off?
This will be controlled by a new option in GCC 5.0.
For the details and the answer to your other questions, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#constmismatch
(If others have comments that are not covered in the FAQ, or believe
the answer there c
Hi all,
although this is a problem of the C standard, I still
find it annoying that the following code produces warnings
about incompatible pointer types (this has been discussed
before, see below):
extern void test(const double x[2][2]);
void foo(void)
{
double x[2][2];
const
23 matches
Mail list logo
