p
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: sigra at home dot se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31238
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: sigra at home dot se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30521
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: sigra at home dot se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29768
--- Comment #4 from sigra at home dot se 2006-09-24 23:57 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> some functions require non zero pointers and those should crash instead of
> having null pointer checks on them. And using references is not always the
> answer as some functions need to b
--- Comment #2 from sigra at home dot se 2006-09-24 23:29 ---
Sorry, accidentally hit commit too early. Try again:
There should be a warning about unchecked use of pointers in C++. For example:
void f(T * const x) {
x->something... // x might be 0, warn.
}
void f(T * cons
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: sigra at home dot se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29208
--- Comment #20 from sigra at home dot se 2006-05-13 08:44 ---
I see that the feature I asked for has been implemented in the Ada frontend of
GCC. This program:
with Ada.Text_IO; use Ada.Text_IO;
procedure Prov is
A : Natural := 0;
begin
Put_Line ("A =" & A&
--- Comment #17 from sigra at home dot se 2006-01-18 23:23 ---
There is some good advice at http://www.gotw.ca/publications/advice98.htm which
says that one should be const-correct and use const whenever possible. (But I
do not suggest using const for return values.) This feature
--- Comment #14 from sigra at home dot se 2006-01-18 20:49 ---
> Isn't this a task for lint-like tool? GCC isn't such thing.
Are you sure? http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/gcc.html says: "GCC provides many
levels of source code error checking traditionally provided by ot
--- Comment #13 from sigra at home dot se 2006-01-18 20:41 ---
> It does not make any sense to require the compiler to give a warning
> in that case.
Read the subject again: "optional"
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25845
--- Comment #8 from sigra at home dot se 2006-01-18 19:29 ---
> On Jan 18, 2006, at 11:19 AM, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
>
> > --- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-01-18 16:19
> > ---
> > (In reply to comment #3)
> >> const do
--- Comment #5 from sigra at home dot se 2006-01-18 16:25 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I still don't understand what this warning is useful for?
>
> const does nothing when it comes to local variables except for not letting
> you touch it in other expressions. It
--- Comment #2 from sigra at home dot se 2006-01-18 16:07 ---
Example 1:
{
int i = f();
do_something(i + 1, 7, 'h');
do_something_else(i % 3, 'e');
}
If i could be declared "const int", the compiler should warn.
Example 2:
float dra(float m, Pan
++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: sigra at home dot se
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25845
14 matches
Mail list logo
