https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43651
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43651
--- Comment #8 from Mikhail Maltsev ---
Author: miyuki
Date: Wed May 11 20:23:37 2016
New Revision: 236142
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236142&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR43651: add warning for duplicate qualifier
gcc/c/
PR c/4365
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43651
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
> Recently I came across such problem in the code base, which I work with. In
> that case it was clearly a mistake, because the author meant 'const char
> *const data', so it would be nice if GCC could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43651
Mikhail Maltsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43651
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fredrik.hederstie...@securi
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 14:25 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> It is generally presumed that if a new feature is deliberately added in a
> new language version, as with duplicate qualifiers in C99, then it is
> useful for it to be allowed with previous
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-06 14:14 ---
Subject: Re: add warning for duplicate qualifier
It is generally presumed that if a new feature is deliberately added in a
new language version, as with duplicate qualifiers in C99, then it is
useful for it to be
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 13:33 ---
What is the rationale for being conditional on pedantic? Is this forbidden by
!c99 and we accept it as an extension?
I understand that it should not be an error in c99 but what to warn is our
decision even if the stand
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-04-06 13:07 ---
Subject: Re: New: add warning for duplicate qualifier
Since C99 allows duplicate qualifiers, this warning is deliberately
conditional on pedantic && !flag_isoc99.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?
