http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49143
Pierre Habouzit changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49143
Summary: make -Wsuggest-attribute less verbose
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@
--- Comment #3 from madcoder at debian dot org 2007-05-11 09:32 ---
Subject: Re: Please provide an "inout" attribute for function parameters.
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:00:51PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #1 from madcoder at debian dot org 2007-05-10 11:12 ---
It seems that even if the argument is declared const foo_t * gcc assumes the
function will initialize the data, which is rather ... erm... strange. Here is
the testcase
se provide an "inout" attribute for function
parameters.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
Repor
--- Comment #2 from madcoder at debian dot org 2006-12-01 22:45 ---
Please, I'm not telling the behaviour is crazy, it's indeed correct.
I'm just asking for a smallish warning that I may be shooting myself in the
foot when I do sth like my 'foo' function from
Summary: __attribute__((nonull(...))) and silent optimizations
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedB
