--- Comment #22 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2008-07-10 13:23 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> > Two questions:
> > 1/ Is the text in the documentation that Dirk Mueller added in the last
> > commit
> >of PR 30601 now wrong/outdated?
>
> I don't know, I'm not a documentation expe
--- Comment #21 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-10 09:28
---
> Two questions:
> 1/ Is the text in the documentation that Dirk Mueller added in the last commit
>of PR 30601 now wrong/outdated?
I don't know, I'm not a documentation expert, maybe some tweaks will be
n
--- Comment #20 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2008-07-10 03:40 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Fixed for 4.4.0.
Thanks a lot!
Two questions:
1/ Is the text in the documentation that Dirk Mueller added in the last commit
of PR 30601 now wrong/outdated?
2/ Does your patch also fix t
--- Comment #19 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-09 20:55
---
Fixed for 4.4.0.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-09 20:53 ---
Subject: Bug 36760
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jul 9 20:52:45 2008
New Revision: 137672
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=137672
Log:
/cp
2008-07-09 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c
--- Comment #17 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-09 19:38
---
Ignore my last message, I had a spurious #pragma system header in my
experiments. Great ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36760
--- Comment #16 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-09 19:34
---
Humm, this case
template
const int i(T);
is a little more tricky, let's what I can do...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36760
--- Comment #15 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2008-07-09 19:22 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Ah, I didn't consider this option! Seems also trivial to implement, just
> remove
> completely the pt.c version of the warning and keep the one in decl.c. Then,
> over the next hours, if I d
--- Comment #14 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-09 19:20
---
(In reply to comment #13)
> is probably worth warning about, but maybe we ought to just skip this
> warning when instantiating a template function. In other words, warn at
> the point of original declaratio
--- Comment #13 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-07-09 19:08 ---
Subject: Re: Simple std::bind use causes warnings with -Wextra
bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #10 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2008-07-09 17:04 ---
> (In reply to comment #8)
>> I was al
--- Comment #12 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-09 17:13
---
And, by the way, I'm noticing the hard way that return by reference is the most
annoying case: if you want to suppress the warnings still deal appropriately
with references, it's a huge special casing everywhe
--- Comment #11 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-09 17:11
---
Well I didn't want to reopen a discussion which I considered closed. But yes, I
also agree. And in case, we should have the change in 4_3-branch too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36760
--- Comment #10 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2008-07-09 17:04 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I was also trying to raise the issue of whether we think the warning is
> useful.
> If it's not practical to avoid the warning in the library, then I wonder if
> it's practical to avoid it o
--- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-09 15:46 ---
Subject: Bug 36760
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Jul 9 15:45:50 2008
New Revision: 137660
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=137660
Log:
/cp
2008-07-09 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR c+
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-09 14:28
---
Paolo --
You're absolutely right; I'd not thought about the orthogonality between what
the library should do and how the compiler should behave. I agree that the
patch is correct; go ahead check it in.
I was als
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-09 11:13
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Subject: Re: Simple std::bind use causes warnings with -Wextra
>
> paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
>
> > Thanks Tom. In fact, yesterday I was writing without remembering
--- Comment #6 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-07-08 16:32 ---
Subject: Re: Simple std::bind use causes warnings with -Wextra
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> Thanks Tom. In fact, yesterday I was writing without remembering my past
> analyses of this type of issue,
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-08 09:59
---
Thanks Tom. In fact, yesterday I was writing without remembering my past
analyses of this type of issue, with system header warnings not suppressed:
TREE_NO_WARNING is *not* generically uses for that. Everythin
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-08 02:45 ---
My guess is that comment #3 is the right theory, because
this warning is issued from the front end. I did not
investigate deeply though.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36760
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-08 02:02
---
Or this pure C++ case is really just a missing TREE_NO_WARNING set somewhere
(check_return_expr?)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36760
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-08 01:40
---
By the way, apparently, even after the fix for c++/32256 and c++/32368,
warnings keep coming from inside the system headers... Any idea why, Tom?
Another case would be this one:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-07-07 23:35
---
Doug, I'm sorry, can you have a look to this one too? I'm slightly confused, we
have PR 36052, and then PR 30601, ... Seems that the warning is intended?!? Do
we have to change bind?!?
--
paolo dot carlini
22 matches
Mail list logo
