https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526
--- Comment #19 from Kaz Kylheku ---
(In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #18)
> (In reply to Kaz Kylheku from comment #17)
> > The standrad does not define the conversion at the *type* level.
> > ...
> > The program is strictly conforming
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526
--- Comment #17 from Kaz Kylheku ---
(In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #14)
> (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #11)
> > I think that simply failing to say whether a value of type X may be
> > converted to type Y is clearly enoug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526
--- Comment #13 from Kaz Kylheku ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #11)
> I think that simply failing to say whether a value of type X may be
> converted to type Y is clearly enough for it at least to be unspecified
> whether or when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526
--- Comment #12 from Kaz Kylheku ---
(In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #10)
> Sorry, sent my earlier comment too soon.
>
> (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #8)
> > I believe conversions between function and object pointers are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526
--- Comment #7 from Kaz Kylheku ---
Also, it would be useful for the documentation to list all the -W-* options
that are implied by -Wpedantic.
The function/object pointer conversion diagnostics, unfortunately, are tied to
-Wpedantic itself, wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83584
Kaz Kylheku changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkylheku at gmail dot com
--- Comment #22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526
--- Comment #3 from Kaz Kylheku ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Actually it is a required diagnostic. See PR 11234 for explanation on how.
> This was changed a little over 20 years ago explictly to reject this because
> it is i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526
Bug ID: 114526
Summary: ISO C does not prohibit extensions: fix misconception.
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36587
--- Comment #19 from Kaz Kylheku ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #18)
> Was there an earlier submission?
No there wasn't; that's my mistake in my comment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36587
--- Comment #16 from Kaz Kylheku ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14)
> C++17 adds nodiscard attribute which can be placed on class/struct types,
> functions, constructors and others and then you get a warning if you ignore
> the valu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36587
--- Comment #15 from Kaz Kylheku ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #13)
> (In reply to Kaz Kylheku from comment #11)
> > I deployed that change to large team of developers, and the toolchain with
> > that change went to customers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44317
Kaz Kylheku changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kkylheku at gmail dot com
--- Comment #12
12 matches
Mail list logo
