http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #20 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-29 02:30:48 UTC ---
Author: emsr
Date: Thu Nov 29 02:30:44 2012
New Revision: 193918
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193918
Log:
gcc/c-family/
2012-11-29 Ed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #19 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-11-28
03:05:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 28814
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28814
Patch.
Here is a final patch for this.
Ultimately we shou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at red
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #17 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-06
18:38:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Thank you for your comments.
>
> I was trying to follow the style of enum that I saw in the vicinity of the
> code
> I was editing. I was not able
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #16 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-04-06
17:40:27 UTC ---
Thank you for your comments.
I was trying to follow the style of enum that I saw in the vicinity of the code
I was editing. I was not able to discern a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #15 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-06
16:40:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Created attachment 27105 [details]
> New patch incorporating recent suggestions.
>
> Using warning_at, OPT_Woverflow, etc.
> Added a new enum for ov
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27105|0 |1
is patch|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27054|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #27103|0 |1
is patch|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #10 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-04-06
04:52:13 UTC ---
I made the warnings on by default. Any opinion on whether I should have made
them depend on OPT_Woverflow instead?
I guess I thought the warning is sli
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #9 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-04-05
19:30:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 27103
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27103
Patch including testcases - warn and only when necessary on literal ove
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #8 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-03-31
18:29:45 UTC ---
I think it's actually (-3)_w. The tokenizer would pick the - up and pass -3
along.
The result of applying a literal operator may not be numeric at all i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse 2012-03-31
17:18:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Also, what about this:
>
> -3_w;
What about it? IIUC, it is just -(3_w), I don't think it requires a particular
treatment.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #6 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-03-31
17:06:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 27054
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27054
Test case for overflow warnings.
This test case should give the approp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-03-31
16:57:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 27053
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27053
This test should give no warnings.
I think I'm going to have to put of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-03-30
17:34:36 UTC ---
Agreed. Testing a patch. This will have the advantage over libcpp that long
double will also be tested for overflow.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
--- Comment #2 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2012-03-30
14:30:20 UTC ---
I short-circuited the overflow check in libcpp in case the literal was resolved
in C++ FE as a raw literal. The raw literal should be able to take any nu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52654
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||3dw4rd at verizon dot net
--- Comment #1
21 matches
Mail list logo
