[Bug analyzer/101713] -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak false positive with GNU coreutils hash table code

2024-12-22 Thread jens.gustedt at inria dot fr via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101713 Jens Gustedt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jens.gustedt at inria dot fr --- Comment

[Bug c/113887] no support for %w128 length modifiers

2024-02-15 Thread jens.gustedt at inria dot fr via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113887 --- Comment #12 from Jens Gustedt --- (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #11) > As I said in comment#2, I prefer a constant suffix for __int128 to the > wb/uwb hack - I think it's cleaner, as well as allowing int128_t to work > properly o

[Bug c/113887] no support for %w128 length modifiers

2024-02-13 Thread jens.gustedt at inria dot fr via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113887 --- Comment #9 from Jens Gustedt --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8) > > #define INT128_C(N) ((__int128)+ N ## W) > > You mean WB? Yes, probably ;-) > > With that observation you easily also create `MIN` and `MAX` macros > > > >

[Bug c/113887] no support for %w128 length modifiers

2024-02-13 Thread jens.gustedt at inria dot fr via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113887 --- Comment #7 from Jens Gustedt --- (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #5) > ... including __INT128_C and __UINT128_C > defined to use an appropriate constant suffix. You don't need a specific suffix for these types if you have `_BitInt

[Bug c/113887] no support for %w128 length modifiers

2024-02-13 Thread jens.gustedt at inria dot fr via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113887 --- Comment #6 from Jens Gustedt --- (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #5) > Compiler and library are not in practice independent for this issue ... For this particular issue they are indeed independent. As said, I have proof of concept

[Bug c/113887] no support for %w128 length modifiers

2024-02-12 Thread jens.gustedt at inria dot fr via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113887 --- Comment #4 from Jens Gustedt --- (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #2) This is not about the question if the C library supports these types as `uint128_t`. This is primarily to provide `printf` etc *interface* support for the built

[Bug c/113887] no support for %w128 length modifiers

2024-02-12 Thread jens.gustedt at inria dot fr via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113887 --- Comment #3 from Jens Gustedt --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > AFAIK glibc doesn't support %w128d etc., it would require full > int128_t/uint128_t support, likely > int_least128_t/uint_least128_t/int_fast128_t/uint_fast128_t,

[Bug c/113887] New: no support for %w128 length modifiers

2024-02-12 Thread jens.gustedt at inria dot fr via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113887 Bug ID: 113887 Summary: no support for %w128 length modifiers Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c/113886] New: new C23 length specifier with confusing diagnostic

2024-02-12 Thread jens.gustedt at inria dot fr via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113886 Bug ID: 113886 Summary: new C23 length specifier with confusing diagnostic Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug c/109284] New: __VA_OPT__ triggers internal compiler error

2023-03-26 Thread jens.gustedt at inria dot fr via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109284 Bug ID: 109284 Summary: __VA_OPT__ triggers internal compiler error Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c