https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liavonlida at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||domen.stangar at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.5|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.4|10.5
--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #32
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.3|10.4
--- Comment #31 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.2|10.3
--- Comment #30 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|10.0|10.2
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #28 from Romain Geissler ---
Hi David,
Do you have plans to submit this patch for review when stage 1 of gcc 11 opens
?
Cheers,
Romain
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||romain.geissler at amadeus dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No. We need at least some warning where non-OpenMP/OpenACC pragmas are in
spots where it causes surprises to users.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #24
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gary at intrepid dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #22 from Chen Gang ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #21)
> Author: jakub
> Date: Fri Nov 27 08:59:55 2015
> New Revision: 230999
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230999&root=gcc&view=rev
This way looks OK to me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 27 08:59:55 2015
New Revision: 230999
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230999&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c/63326
* c-parser.c (c_parser_compound_statement_nost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #20 from Chen Gang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #18)
> (In reply to Chen Gang from comment #17)
> > I guess the diff below should be OK, I shall give a make check test.
>
> I would rather have the C front-end behavior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #19 from Chen Gang ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #18)
> (In reply to Chen Gang from comment #17)
> > I guess the diff below should be OK, I shall give a make check test.
>
> I would rather have the C front-end behavior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Chen Gang from comment #17)
> I guess the diff below should be OK, I shall give a make check test.
I would rather have the C front-end behavior for C++ rather than the opposite
way around. Bec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #17 from Chen Gang ---
I guess the diff below should be OK, I shall give a make check test.
diff --git a/gcc/c/c-parser.c b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
index 7b10764..257 100644
--- a/gcc/c/c-parser.c
+++ b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
@@ -5170,7 +5170
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #16 from Chen Gang ---
Our C++ has no this issue. For precisely saying: cc1 has the issue, but cc1plus
has no the issue (if use g++ build c programs, it has no issue; if use gcc
build c++ programs, it has no issue, either).
But still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #15 from Chen Gang ---
For me, comment #9 is the reasonable fixing way. In real world, C/C++
programmers will/should not use #pragma in this way (use #pragma in place of
the statement following an if, while, do, switch, or label).
An
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #14 from Chen Gang ---
For gcc version 6.0.0 20151121 (experimental) (GCC), this issue is still
existant. I shall try to fix it within this month (2015-11-30).
Hope I can succeed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Related bug: PR42979
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to steveren from comment #11)
> So assuming it's not actually beyond somebody completely unfamiliar with the
> innards of gcc, what would be the response to a patch which changed #pragma
> me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #11 from steveren ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #10)
> (In reply to steveren from comment #6)
> > Seems the consensus is that it's not contrary to Standard, but it's agreed
> > to be confusing and undesirable by ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to steveren from comment #6)
> Seems the consensus is that it's not contrary to Standard, but it's agreed
> to be confusing and undesirable by everyone except the gcc maintainers :-)
Not sur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Maybe we should also warn about
if (...)
#pragma STDC ...
foo ();
both if we are treating the #pragma as stmt and if not. That is, if the
#pragma appears in a place where that would make a differenc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||q@rsn-tech.co.uk
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
#pragma STDC is functionally a declaration (it can only occur "either
outside external declarations or preceding all explicit declarations and
statements inside a compound statement" - each
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4)
> When compiled with Clang, it returns 0 by the way.
So ...
Pragma that are not recognized are ignored.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
When compiled with Clang, it returns 0 by the way.
34 matches
Mail list logo
