https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
--- Comment #7 from Adam Jackson ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #6)
> Well, zero-length arrays are a GNU C extension, but pre-C99 you could use
> pixels[1] and post-C99 you can use pixels[]. Is non of that an option?
The code coul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93582
Adam Jackson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ajax at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85182
Adam Jackson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ajax at redhat dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Consider:
---
desoxy:~/git/junkdrawer% cat -n static-assert.h
1 static inline void bar(void)
2 {
3 _Static_assert(0, "called bar()");
4
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ajax at redhat dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Testcase:
-
#include
struct foo { void *v; };
struct foo *bar(void)
{
int a[10];
struct foo *ret = malloc(sizeof(struct foo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51427
Bug #: 51427
Summary: Less-than-useful error message when union/struct tags
conflict
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
ested-functions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ajax at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
--- Comment #2 from ajax at redhat dot com 2006-12-05 19:37 ---
Just to clarify, I neglected to use -O in the example above, but this behaviour
is still seen even with -O.
--
ajax at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
everity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ajax at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30075
