http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18624
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
--- Comment #30 from Andrew Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18624
--- Comment #29 from alexander.herrmann at aiengine dot org 2011-08-24 19:21:47
UTC ---
Dear Jakub,
I just did try the example code with gcc 4.5.2.
It plain c not c++. Some oldfashioned people still use c ;)
Regards,
Alexander J. Herrmann
2011/8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18624
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18624
--- Comment #27 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2011-08-24 17:14:19 UTC ---
FIXED? Seems that this is supported in c++ nowadays, thanks to dodji.
--- Comment #26 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 06:52 ---
Subject: Bug 18624
Author: dodji
Date: Thu May 6 06:52:30 2010
New Revision: 159096
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=159096
Log:
C++ support for -Wunused-but-set-variable
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
--- Comment #25 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-16 06:58 ---
C++ still doesn't support this warning, so not yet.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18624
--- Comment #24 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-15 19:32 ---
@Jakub,
is this FIXED? Could you document this new option in GCC 4.6 changes.html?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18624
--- Comment #23 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-07 20:34 ---
Subject: Bug 18624
Author: jakub
Date: Wed Apr 7 20:33:36 2010
New Revision: 158086
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158086
Log:
PR c/18624
* tree.h (DECL_READ_P): Define.
--- Comment #22 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-30 13:56 ---
In that case you weren't using the latest version of the patch.
Please try http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg01582.html
instead, it should fix several important bugs and initializers of compound
literals ar
--- Comment #21 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2009-11-30 11:30 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg01392.html
I tried out your patch on a recent Linux kernel and got
some possibly false positives
Code like
static inline pud_t __pud(pudval_t va
--- Comment #20 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-25 18:28 ---
That's on purpose. b is actually used by assignment to a in both cases, c is
used in the first case by assignment to b. If the user decides to remove the a
variable (resp. c in the second case) based on this warning
--- Comment #19 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-25 18:15 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg01392.html
>
Wunused-var-1.c has these two tests:
void
f1 (void)
{
int a;/* { dg-warning "set but not used" } */
int b;
int c;
--- Comment #18 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-25 08:59 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg01392.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18624
--- Comment #17 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-24 11:38 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg01338.html
is an example where the warning would be very useful, we create GC garbage
uselessly...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18624
--- Comment #16 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-24 11:36 ---
*** Bug 36390 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #15 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-04 10:52 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
>
> > We need someone to write the patch. Just that.
>
> I've got some spare time now, so I'd like to have a go.
If you want your code to be useful, fill a copyr
--- Comment #14 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2009-06-11 12:57 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> We need someone to write the patch. Just that.
I've got some spare time now, so I'd like to have a go.
I can see that used_flag bitfield can be expanded from 1 bit to 2 bits.
I can see that
--- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-30 16:11 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
>
> For source codes [a-k]*, there where 906 occurrences of the "set but
> not used" warning from Intel C/C++.
>
@dcb
I think nobody is discussing that we would want such warning (in some
--- Comment #12 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2009-01-30 13:48 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Yes this would be slightly useful but one has to be care full of what is
> warned about.
Agreed. For a first cut, a simple straight forward job, without
considering the complex cases, could b
--- Comment #11 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-27 13:04 ---
should we
- add a bit so that used_flags:2 and set TREE_USED() = 2 in
expand_assignment(), expand_expr_real_1, adjust setting tree
addressable(decl)=!!TREE_USED(decl), set it in gimplify_modify_expr_rhs() for
vars th
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-26 20:52 ---
*** Bug 16517 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-03 16:52 ---
*** Bug 31795 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #8 from alexander_herrmann at yahoo dot com dot au 2005-11-02
11:29 ---
I guessed somebody found it before but searching the db I couldn'n find it.
Anyway shouldn't we make it than dependend or blocking Bug
#tree-optimization/21513
As the funktion while C correct will never
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-01 14:22 ---
*** Bug 24611 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
24 matches
Mail list logo
