Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: neil at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Quoting the standard [6.10.2 Conditional inclusion]: For the purposes of this
token conversion and evaluation, all signed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65974
Neil Bird changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||neil at fnxweb dot com
--- Comment #1 from
ty: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39647
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39646
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38246
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38243
--- Comment #3 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 22:18 ---
The standard talks about the groups controlled by conditionals being skipped.
There is no conditional controlling the #elif - it is at the top level - so I
see nothing permitting its non-evaluation.
--
http
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36320
--- Comment #2 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-15 02:56 ---
Never mind, I see your point. The comma isn't being eaten, right.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
--- Comment #1 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-15 02:54 ---
Chris - unless I'm missing something I disagree. The
, ## __VA_ARGS__
token sequence is being eaten in its entirety by the empty argument. Then
between "format" and the ')' on the #
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36088
--- Comment #2 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2008-04-12 04:40
---
Subject: Re: Dubious charset conversions
joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:-
> > GCC accepts the following with -ansi -pedantic -Wall without diagnostics
> >
> > #include
> >
rsions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35908
--- Comment #4 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-23 14:03 ---
To be honest this isn't even a disputed case from what I can see. I doubt you
can find a serious C implementation (i.e. tcc etc. doesn't count) that will do
what you expect.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot o
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35313
Version: 4.1.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35312
--- Comment #6 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-18 15:24 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I believe more than 160 bits are required to get even single-precision numbers
> right with DECIMAL_DIG digits precision and an exponent. I'm going to try and
> prove this
--- Comment #5 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-11 03:45 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> We probably don't even get it right for all cases with DECIMAL_DIG digits for
> all long double formats (required by Annex F).
(In reply to comment #2)
> My reading of
ummary: offsetof buglet
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bu
--- Comment #4 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-10 00:00 ---
Agreed it's minor; I think I flagged the PR that way.
I'm not sure but I suspect it indicates that the pointer decay is not
happening. If so and you were using GCC to do source code analysis, you wou
--- Comment #2 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2007-05-09 23:39
---
Subject: Re: Failure to diagnose taking address of register variable
bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:-
> Uh, can you elaborate? We get the warning you want if we have
> int d (void) { register i
--- Comment #2 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 05:01 ---
The space is required by the standard. Is this a regression? I believe GCC
used to get this right but I could be wrong.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31869
oduct: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31871
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31870
--- Comment #1 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-11-14 22:49
---
Subject: Re: New: Concatenation operator ## doesn't work with this: / ## /
michael dot bishop at gdcanada dot com wrote:-
> I am trying to use the macro concatenation operator to make a "conditio
--- Comment #6 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-10-26 12:42
---
Subject: Re: hex and oct constants are converted to wrong type
lukew at radterm dot com dot au wrote:-
> > The resulting tokens compose the controlling constant expression which
> > is evaluat
--- Comment #2 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-10-14 16:19
---
Subject: Re: -ansi -pedantic accepts _Bool without diagnostic
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 15:29
> ---
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 15:29
> ---
> Hmm, isn't _Bool in the implemenation keyword space anyways?
It is, so is _Complex, and that is diagnosed. I'm not saying it's
a conformance problem, just that it'
--- Comment #1 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 12:25 ---
Not a bug - just 2 elements are initialized, the NUL is dropped.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29467
--- Comment #2 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-10-12 22:27
---
Subject: Re: parser bug for variable declaration immediately following case
statement in switch block
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
be placed anywhere a statement can.
>
> This is a dup of bug 29062.
It's going to keep getting reported until the diagnostic improves and
shows that it's not the compiler that is confused.
Neil.
sion: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29237
--- Comment #3 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-09-19 13:04
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Strictly conforming code rejected
joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:-
> > foo.c:1: error: '[*]' not allowed in other than a declaration
>
> As th
--- Comment #5 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 15:13 ---
Confirmed
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-03-05
NCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129
--- Comment #1 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 14:02 ---
Fixed in current SVN.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 14:02 ---
Fixed in current SVN.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29126
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29125
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29116
--- Comment #2 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-09-13 22:27
---
Subject: Re: Parse error after label and variable declaration
schwab at suse dot de wrote:-
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-09-13 15:32 ---
> A label can only
--- Comment #6 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-08-23 13:16
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Preprocessor doesn't parse tokens
correctly?
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 20
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-18 05:11
> ---
> Confirmed, a regression from 3.3.3.
Rather, intended behaviour since 3.3.3.
Neil.
--- Comment #8 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-29 05:02 ---
This is not a bug. If you are preprocessing preprocessed output, you must use
-fpreprocessed as documented. Otherwise many other things will go wrong, not
just this. The bug is on your command line.
--
neil at
--- Comment #3 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-28 23:48 ---
Tokenization is correct since preprocessed output has been through stages 1-3
and starts at stage 4. If you're passing -trigraphs then your command line is
incorrect.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org ch
--- Comment #3 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-28 23:47 ---
Tokenization is correct on reprocessing since ?= is not a token.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-05-24 12:55
---
Subject: Re: New: bogus 'backslash-newline at end of file' warning
sabre at nondot dot org wrote:-
> $ gcc bug.c -Wall -pedantic -fsyntax-only -trigraphs -std=c99
>
> yields:
> bug.c:
diagnostics are accurate.
The empty source file diagnostic is clearly incorrect, it has text
in it 8-) However I think it's quite logical it appear last as that
it where it can be discovered.
The backslash diagnostic is clearly bogus too.
Neil.
--- Comment #3 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-05-21 23:17
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] incorrect warning about constness of
pointer to an array in a const struct
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
>
> --- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc do
--- Comment #7 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-05-18 22:22
---
Subject: Re: variable previously declared `static' redeclared `extern' is
valid ISO C - 3.4 and 4.0 regression
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
> Hmm, I think this causes the following inval
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
> Hmm, I think this causes the following invalid code to be accepted (but I am
> not sure if this is invalid code or not):
> enum in_section { in_toc };
> int f(void) { extern int in_toc; }
>
> --
> In 3.3 and before we got:
> t1.c: In function `f':
--- Comment #7 from neil at fnxweb dot com 2006-03-20 08:48 ---
Fair enough; for the record, I did spend an obscene amount of time trying to
make the example more straightforward, but *any* simplification over what I
attached worked OK.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #1 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-11 14:28 ---
There is no reason the results should not change.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-03-11 00:15
---
Subject: Re: spurious warning: value computed is not used
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-10 15:16
> ---
> Hmm
--- Comment #3 from neil at fnxweb dot com 2006-03-08 12:41 ---
Was it compiled up to use mt_allocator? I won't have the time to check again
for a short while.
If it's considered a good idea to use -pthreads, then it ought really to have
it's info-page entry updated
--- Comment #30 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-02-19 00:52
---
Subject: Re: no compile time array index checking
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
> Also make sure not to trip on
>
> typedef struct {
> int len;
> char str[4];
> } String;
>
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
> Also make sure not to trip on
>
> typedef struct {
> int len;
> char str[4];
> } String;
>
> char foo(String *s)
> {
> return s->str[42];
> }
That definitely deserves a warning.
Neil.
--- Comment #2 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-21 08:02 ---
Discussing with pinskia, I believe qualifying the array type is intended to be
viewed as qualifying the element type, not the array, so the example is
invalid.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25897
--- Comment #7 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-01-09 04:38
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Internal compiler error (segfault)
instead of error message
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
> Sadly I have no idea what this variable is for, and Joseph did not
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
> Sadly I have no idea what this variable is for, and Joseph did not add any
Detecting jumps over variably modified types as required in C99.
Neil.
--- Comment #10 from neil at fnxweb dot com 2005-12-14 11:47 ---
For ref., I've just raised PR 25409 which may possible be a dup. of this
problem. It's nothing to do with Solaris, though, so I didn't just add the
details here.
--
neil at fnxweb dot com changed:
--- Comment #1 from neil at fnxweb dot com 2005-12-14 11:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=10484)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10484&action=view)
Example of the crash
Do 'make' in top level of build tree.
'make symbolcheck' afte
construcutor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at fnxweb dot com
GCC build triplet: i386-redhat-linux
GCC host triplet: i386-redhat-linux
GCC target triplet: i386-redhat-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25409
--- Comment #32 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-10-26 23:07
---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] back-slash newline extension can't be
removed
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
> > That would be the consensus from Andrew, not from people concerne
as said we should not change it. It looks like
> DJ is saying the same in the new thread which shows the real issues with the
> other compilers implemenation.
I've said we should change it, I don't work for Apple. Please stop
trying to claim your opinion is some kind of consensus.
Neil.
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24293
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-09-15
22:58 ---
Subject: Re: UCNs not recognized in identifiers (c++/c99)
joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:-
> I don't believe I said I'd file a DR unless I saw a defect. There is no
> defect bec
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-09-15
22:53 ---
Subject: Re: UCNs not recognized in identifiers (c++/c99)
geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-15
> 22:34
e the
> Rationale says that the kind of implementation we have now is supposed to be
> permitted, and jsm said
> he'd file a DR. How's that going?
I very much doubt this is a defect. Just because it doesn't fit your
implementation...
Neil.
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-09-15
22:50 ---
Subject: Re: switch and struct
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-15
> 14:22 ---
> Small testcase:
&g
But IIRC this is invalid code as variable defintions are not allowed right
> after a label.
> void f(int i)
> {
> a:
> struct a *b;
> }
>
>
> In fact This is a dup of bug 7508.
Really this error message needs to be much better. Otherwise this
PR will keep coming back.
Neil.
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-09-12
12:42 ---
Subject: Re: Is this right?
igodard at pacbell dot net wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-09-12 03:17
> ---
> In the case you give I count
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-08-27
05:44 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] File not included when file with same name
is included before
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu d
ke these. IMO the code was already
quite efficient.
Neil.
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-08-13
05:30 ---
Subject: Re: Declaration within case statement produces syntax error
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-12
&
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-12
> 20:54 ---
> Labels can only be applied to statements, not declarations; see the C99
> standard.
That would be a much better error message.
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-07-28
22:46 ---
Subject: Re: The -Wunused (value computed is not used) option missed an
important case
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-28
> 17:28 ---
> foo() has side effects.
> *p++ has the side effect of increasing p by 1.
>
> --
>What|Removed |Added
> --
--- Additional Comments From neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-26 12:13
---
I meant to add -Wall to the warning list.
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Redundant
rning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
violation of constraint 6.516p2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC
tatus: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22249
--- Additional Comments From neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-26 15:11
---
(In reply to comment #0)
> With -fsyntax-only GCC erroneously rejects the following array 'x' as having
> non-constant size. Its size should evaluate to 1.
>
> int
> bar (int v)
>
n of valid array declaration.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-24 22:24
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Yup, it's documented. However, it's still silently accepted even with
-pedantic, and the language doesn't
> permit that.
My copy of the standard onl
--- Additional Comments From neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-24 14:56
---
Documented behaviour.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Version: 3.3.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21794
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http
IRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21720
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21438
ority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21296
--- Additional Comments From neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-13 13:29
---
Not a bug - you misunderstand basename.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-04-05
11:31 ---
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR preprocessor/19475
Jakub Jelinek wrote:-
> Is there some limitation on how many bytes or error messages
> dejagnu groks or something?
I think it gets confused by the
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-03-01
23:36 ---
Subject: Re: __LINE__ implementation flaky.
neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-03-01
> 23:13 ---
>
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-03-01
23:13 ---
Subject: Re: __LINE__ implementation flaky.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-01
> 17:16 ---
> Oute
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
