http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11856
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gpiez at web dot de
--- Comment #36 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11856
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rikaigcc at rikai dot com
--- Comment #35
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11856
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11856
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11856
--- Comment #32 from Jason Merrill 2012-05-14
12:56:09 UTC ---
Seems like another job for c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11856
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
--- Comment #30 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-06 05:39
---
*** Bug 45553 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11856
--- Comment #29 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-06 05:24
---
*** Bug 45553 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #28 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2010-05-07 13:15 ---
*** Bug 44021 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
bangerth at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #27 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-14 23:29 ---
No, this is still a bug and the last discussion about it was here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00642.html
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #26 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-14 21:38
---
*** Bug 34783 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11856
--- Comment #25 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-14 19:42
---
*** Bug 34783 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #24 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-20 21:46 ---
As a workaround, the warning can be disabled with -Wno-type-limits.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11856
--- Comment #23 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-20 21:32 ---
Subject: Bug 11856
Author: manu
Date: Sun May 20 20:29:55 2007
New Revision: 124875
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124875
Log:
2007-05-20 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR m
--- Comment #22 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-06 13:49 ---
Not a definitive fix but at least the warning can be disabled:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01933.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11856
--- Comment #21 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-01-17 13:47 ---
Subject: Re: unsigned warning in template
"tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > The particularity of such expressions is that they are constants.
|
| I've thought about this a bit but I don
--- Comment #20 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-17 12:32 ---
> The particularity of such expressions is that they are constants.
I've thought about this a bit but I don't have a real conclusion.
I don't know why this warning was added in the first place... it seems
like perh
--- Comment #19 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-17 03:49 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Subject: Re: unsigned warning in template
>
> "manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | (In reply to comment #14)
> | > | We don't emit a warning when instantiated
--- Comment #18 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-01-17 01:46 ---
Subject: Re: unsigned warning in template
"tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| A flag to control the warning does not provide
| fine enough granularity of control.
Indeed.
| That is, somet
--- Comment #17 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-17 01:32 ---
A flag to control the warning does not provide
fine enough granularity of control. That is, sometimes
the warning is appropriate, and disabling the warning
would let through code that you would prefer not to let thr
--- Comment #16 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-01-17 01:30 ---
Subject: Re: unsigned warning in template
"manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| (In reply to comment #14)
| > | We don't emit a warning when instantiated as a signed char, so everything
| > boil
--- Comment #15 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-17 01:11 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> | We don't emit a warning when instantiated as a signed char, so everything
> boils
> | down to having an option to disable the warning, doesn't it?
>
> the logical inference escapes me.
>
--- Comment #14 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-01-17 00:59 ---
Subject: Re: unsigned warning in template
"manu at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| #include
| template
| void f(Int x) {
| assert(0 <= x and x <= D);
| }
| int main() {
| f(5);
| f(5);
| }
--- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-17 00:47 ---
#include
template
void f(Int x) {
assert(0 <= x and x <= D);
}
int main() {
f(5);
f(5);
}
We don't emit a warning when instantiated as a signed char, so everything boils
down to having an option to disable th
--- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 14:36 ---
This seems similar to PR 12963. I am preparing a patch for this
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #11 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-23 01:23 ---
Subject: Re: unsigned warning in template
"gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > I see, I oversimplified the problem a bit. Here is a better example:
| > --
| > #incl
--- Comment #10 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-23 01:17 ---
> > With this code:
> > template
> > void f(t c) {
> > assert(0 <= c and c <= 2);
> > }
> > int main() {
> > f(5);
> > }
> > I only get a warning on instantiation.
> >
> >
>
> I see, I oversimplified the problem
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-21 20:38 ---
-Wno-always-true does NOT disable this warning.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11856
28 matches
Mail list logo
