--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-28 15:05
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE jumping into statement
expression
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I remember using once a void statement expression &quo
--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-27 17:05
---
Subject: Re: Disable special handling of functions with
--freestanding
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, alex dot neyman at auriga dot ru wrote:
> The bug 14411 was submitted by me as well, though from a differ
--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-27 15:39
---
Subject: Re: New: Disable special handling of functions with
--freestanding
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, alex dot neyman at auriga dot ru wrote:
> - different code is generated for function issuing the set
--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-27 12:55
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE jumping into statement
expression
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Surely this is not valid?
The validity is the subject of bug 772 and
--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-20 23:03
---
Subject: Re: C integer promotion semantics /
front end problems.
I presume you sent your message directly to me by mistake, so am sending
the reply back to the bug database so it can benefit more than
--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-20 22:41
---
Subject: Re: usual arithmetic conversion not applying correctly
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, schlie at comcast dot net wrote:
> It's a pretty major screw-up to presume
> all target machines are
--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-20 21:31
---
Subject: Re: usual arithmetic conversion not applying correctly
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Otherwise, the integer promotions are performed on both operands. Then
&g
--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-20 17:59
---
Subject: Re: HAVE_LANGINFO_CODESET never defined
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, mckinlay at redhat dot com wrote:
> Do we really want to fix this?
>
> The "buggy" behaviour actually seems bet
--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-19 17:28
---
Subject: Re: Re: [Bug c/18059] New: bad diagnostic formatting
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> c-common.c contains
> void c_parse_error (const char *msgid, enum cpp
--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-15 21:55
---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] wrong error in presence of builtin
fn + K&R declaration.
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Looking at the above date which is from using
--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-14 20:12
---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] ICE with nested functions
in parameter declaration
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk wrote:
> expressions with longjmp, statement expressi
--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-14 20:05
---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] ICE with nested functions
in parameter declaration
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, rth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> You do? Hm, in which case I may need to persu
--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-14 18:25
---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 Regression] ICE with nested functions
in parameter declaration
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, rth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Looks to me as if the nested function has nothing to
--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-13 10:15
---
Subject: Re: New: assigning size_t to int - warning needs to
be flagged .
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, kaykaylance at yahoo dot com wrote:
> When compiling this code fragment, I am essentially assignin
--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-04 12:44
---
Subject: Re: The -Wsequence-point warnng misses many important
instances
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
> JSM, can you have a look at this patch? It is said to be fu
--- Additional Comments From jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk 2004-10-01 23:29
---
Subject: Re: Visibility attribute ignored when it precedes
class head
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, austern at apple dot com wrote:
> I hesitate to call this "behaves correctly", since thi
16 matches
Mail list logo
