http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
eidletni at mail dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46309
eidletni at mail dot ru changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
--- Comment #10 from eidletni at mail dot ru 2011-01-25 19:40:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> WONTFIX doesn't mean "nobody cares"
As I know, it does. Bugzilla resolution: fixed - "we have problem and fix it",
in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
--- Comment #8 from eidletni at mail dot ru 2011-01-25 18:46:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> >because constructor of struct A never called with "bad"
> How can that be true if the compiler does not know that or could fig
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47444
Summary: False warning: array subscript is above array bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46309
--- Comment #1 from eidletni at mail dot ru 2010-11-05 08:36:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 22290
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22290
c++ code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46309
Summary: optimization a==3||a==1
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
