> "MB" == Miles Bader writes:
MB> [Or, perhaps, not "-Wall" perse, but maybe a new option which
MB> is a little more conservative, "-Wstandard" or something...]
Sure. Making a few more of the -W flags on by default may be OK,
depending on the chosen list. It is the idea of turing all possi
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM, James Cloos wrote:
>> "MB" == Miles Bader writes:
>
> MB> [Or, perhaps, not "-Wall" perse, but maybe a new option which
> MB> is a little more conservative, "-Wstandard" or something...]
>
> Sure. Making a few more of the -W flags on by default may be OK,
> d
What are the possibilities of adding a GCC extension to allow:
switch (foo) {
case 1:
case 2:
case 3 to 8:
case 9:
default:
}
in C/C++ case statements?
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Rick Hodgin wrote:
> What are the possibilities of adding a GCC extension to allow:
>
> switch (foo) {
> case 1:
> case 2:
> case 3 to 8:
> case 9:
> default:
> }
>
> in C/C++ case statements?
GCC used to have a range extension for case:
case 3..8
which has b
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 08:59:46AM -0700, Rick Hodgin wrote:
> What are the possibilities of adding a GCC extension to allow:
>
> switch (foo) {
> case 1:
> case 2:
> case 3 to 8:
> case 9:
> default:
> }
This already exists (and is a GNU extension):
switch (foo)
{
case 1:
break;
On 4/8/2012 11:59 AM, Rick Hodgin wrote:
What are the possibilities of adding a GCC extension to allow:
switch (foo) {
case 1:
case 2:
case 3 to 8:
case 9:
default:
}
in C/C++ case statements?
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
I think there is very little enthusiasm these days for adding
non-stan
Thank you!
I'd like to find out some day exactly how much I _don't_ know. :-)
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
--- On Sun, 4/8/12, Marek Polacek wrote:
> From: Marek Polacek
> Subject: Re: Switch statement case range
> To: "Rick Hodgin"
> Cc: "gcc"
> Date: Sunday, April 8, 2012, 12:05 PM
> On S
On Sun, 2012-04-08 at 09:07 -0700, Rick Hodgin wrote:
> Thank you!
>
> I'd like to find out some day exactly how much I _don't_ know. :-)
>
Knock yourself out ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C-Extensions.html
Cheers,
Oleg
An update on the GNU Tools Cauldron (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2012)
If you are starting to organize your trip, we have added some
suggestions about accomodation on the Cauldron page. We have not
negotiated special prices with any hotel in Prague.
If you need an invitation letter for a vi
Hello Diego,
I am all set with my plans for Prague, but I have to
leave on a flight at 2pm on Wednesday. I hope my
presentation can be scheduled consistently with these
travel plans?
Robert Dewar
As comprehensive as that list is (and it is indeed quite impressive), it is yet
a small subset I assure you. LOL! :-)
I have to be honest ... the more I learn about GCC the more impressed I am. I
think it is, without a doubt, the best GNU project in history.
Has there ever been any talk of nom
On 07/04/2012 23:58, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> -Wunused-function
>>> -Wunused-label
>>> -Wunused-value
>>> -Wunused-variable
>> IMHO we should move the -Wunused ones into -Wextra if we're going to turn on
>> -Wall by default. The rest seem pr
Hi Paul,
> I put some debugging on here:
>
> op0 = XEXP (operands[0], 0);
> if (GET_CODE (op0) == REG
> || (GET_CODE (op0) == PLUS && GET_CODE (XEXP (op0, 0)) == REG
> && GET_CODE (XEXP (op0, 1)) == CONST_INT
> && (unsigned) INTVAL (XEXP (op0, 1)) < 4096))
> {
> op0 = oper
On 8 April 2012 16:16, James Cloos wrote:
>
> Sure. Making a few more of the -W flags on by default may be OK,
> depending on the chosen list. It is the idea of turing all possible
> warning options on by default which is unreasonable.
Noone's suggested doing that. As Gaby said, -Wall doesn't tu
On 4/8/2012 1:56 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The people who don't want -Wall (or
-Wstandard) enabled are likely to be the ones who know how to use
-Wno-all or whatever to get what they want.
I see no evidence that supports that guess. On the contrary, I
would guess that if -Wall is set by defau
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 1:56 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> The people who don't want -Wall (or
>> -Wstandard) enabled are likely to be the ones who know how to use
>> -Wno-all or whatever to get what they want.
>
>
> I see no evidence that supports tha
On 8 April 2012 19:51, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 1:56 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> The people who don't want -Wall (or
>> -Wstandard) enabled are likely to be the ones who know how to use
>> -Wno-all or whatever to get what they want.
>
>
> I see no evidence that supports that guess. O
On 4/8/2012 3:33 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/8/2012 1:56 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The people who don't want -Wall (or
-Wstandard) enabled are likely to be the ones who know how to use
-Wno-all or whatever to get what they want.
I
On 4/8/2012 3:37 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Again, that also applies when people use -Wall today: a false positive
is unwanted even if you use -Wall, and those false positives are bugs
and so having them in bugzilla is good.
Do you really want me to file hundreds of bug reports that are for
ca
On 8 April 2012 20:54, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 3:37 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> Again, that also applies when people use -Wall today: a false positive
>> is unwanted even if you use -Wall, and those false positives are bugs
>> and so having them in bugzilla is good.
>
>
> Do you reall
On 4/8/2012 4:02 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
No, because those are already in bugzilla, and there's a whole wiki
page about improving that particular warning.
Yes, I know, and that page is to me good justification for NOT including
this warning in the set that is on by default.
But I'd be just
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 3:33 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/8/2012 1:56 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The people who don't want -Wall (or
-Wstandard) enabled are likely
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 3:37 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> Again, that also applies when people use -Wall today: a false positive
>> is unwanted even if you use -Wall, and those false positives are bugs
>> and so having them in bugzilla is good.
>
>
> Do
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 4:02 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> But I'd be just as happy with a -Wstandard (by any name) enabled by
>> default as I would be with -Wall on by default. Only enabling warnings
>> with very little chance of false positives would av
On 4/8/2012 4:23 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
I think I agree with this. I suspect the only difference might be that
I do not believe the fix is necessarily to turn them off.
Well there are three possibilities
a) fix the false positives, at the possible expense of introducing
new false negati
On 4/8/2012 4:25 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/8/2012 3:37 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Again, that also applies when people use -Wall today: a false positive
is unwanted even if you use -Wall, and those false positives are bugs
and so havi
On 4/8/2012 4:26 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/8/2012 4:02 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
But I'd be just as happy with a -Wstandard (by any name) enabled by
default as I would be with -Wall on by default. Only enabling warnings
with very li
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 4:23 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> I think I agree with this. I suspect the only difference might be that
>> I do not believe the fix is necessarily to turn them off.
>
>
> Well there are three possibilities
>
> a) fix the false
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 4:26 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/8/2012 4:02 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>
But I'd be just as happy with a -Wstandard (by any name) enabled by
defa
On 4/8/2012 4:59 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
no, -Wstandard wasn't in my original proposal. It is the name suggested
by Miles for the list I gave Arnaud upon request.
I know that, I can read -:)
I am just saying I think this issue still needs discussion (and you
were complaining about contin
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20120408 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20120408/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
Hi
GCC does warn if returning a pointer to a local variable (stack memory).
But there are alot of more cases where GCC could possibly warn,
eg. when references are made to local variables or stack memory.
See this attached example code.
GCC warns for first case, but not the others.
I think all ca
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On
33 matches
Mail list logo
