--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28986
--- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 16:03 ---
Fixed in GCC 4.3
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSI
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-07 23:40 ---
Subject: Bug 28986
Author: manu
Date: Sun Jan 7 23:39:55 2007
New Revision: 120558
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120558
Log:
2007-01-07 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c+
--- Comment #8 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-01-06 17:50 ---
Subject: Bug number PR c++/28986
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg00473.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzil
--- Comment #7 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2007-01-02 23:33
---
Subject: Re: Failure to diagnose overflow in constant expression
"andrew dot stubbs at st dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Comment #6 from andrew dot stubbs at st dot com 2007-01-02 14:04
--- Comment #6 from andrew dot stubbs at st dot com 2007-01-02 14:04
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Why is this "accepts-invalid"? Shouldn't it be "diagnostic" instead? I am
> trying to understand what is the expected output here: a warning or a pedantic
> error?
Clause 5 paragraph 5
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-09 21:51 ---
Why is this "accepts-invalid"? Shouldn't it be "diagnostic" instead? I am
trying to understand what is the expected output here: a warning or a pedantic
error?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
Wh
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-01 23:36 ---
I am working in a patch but don't expect it too soon. Yet, I am quite advanced,
that is why I am accepting it. If this is not the proper way to do it, please
let me know.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-28 22:35 ---
Roger,
The patch below fixes this bug. But it also introduces bug 19978 (multiple
warnings) in the C++ front-end. Yet, all regression testcases pass. They pass
because C++ overflow testcases are very limited and becaus
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-25 14:06 ---
As far as I can see, the C++ front-end fails to call overflow_warning
(c-common.c) from build_binary_op (cp/typeck.c) in the same way as the C
front-end does in parser_build_binary_op(c-typeck.c).
--
manu at gcc dot
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-09 04:14 ---
Confirmed, not a regression and only happens with the C++ front-end.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
11 matches
Mail list logo
