pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
> Hmm, I think this causes the following invalid code to be accepted (but I am
> not sure if this is invalid code or not):
> enum in_section { in_toc };
> int f(void) { extern int in_toc; }
>
> --
> In 3.3 and before we got:
> t1.c: In function `f':
sabre at nondot dot org wrote:-
> $ gcc bug.c -Wall -pedantic -fsyntax-only -trigraphs -std=c99
>
> yields:
> bug.c:2:9: warning: trigraph ??/ converted to \
> bug.c:2:9: warning: backslash-newline at end of file
> bug.c:2:1: warning: multi-line comment
> bug.c:1: warning: ISO C forbids an empty
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
> Sadly I have no idea what this variable is for, and Joseph did not add any
Detecting jumps over variably modified types as required in C99.
Neil.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-18 05:11
> ---
> Confirmed, a regression from 3.3.3.
Rather, intended behaviour since 3.3.3.
Neil.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-12 20:47
> ---
> This is not valid C code.
> even though declarations can appear intermixed with statements, they are still
> not a statement and cannot be placed anywhere a statemen
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 15:29
> ---
> Hmm, isn't _Bool in the implemenation keyword space anyways?
It is, so is _Complex, and that is diagnosed. I'm not saying it's
a conformance problem, just that it'
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-15
> 14:22 ---
> Small testcase:
> void f(int i)
> {
> switch (i)
> {
> case 1:
> struct a *b;
> }
> }
>
> But IIRC this is invalid code as variable defintion
geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-15
> 22:34 ---
> (In reply to comment #39)
> > Another reason why spelling needs preserving (in addition to implementing #
> > correctly) is for the constraints on duplicate macr
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
> > That would be the consensus from Andrew, not from people concerned that deal
> > with language issues routinely.
>
> Wait a minute, if you actually look at the people agrueing for the change, it
> is only Apple employees. Joe has said we should not chan
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-28
> 17:28 ---
> foo() has side effects.
> *p++ has the side effect of increasing p by 1.
>
> --
>What|Removed |Added
> --
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-12
> 20:54 ---
> Labels can only be applied to statements, not declarations; see the C99
> standard.
That would be a much better error message.
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-26
> 15:57 ---
> This got broken by the libcpp/files.c part of
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00272.html
> My understanding of the change was that this was just a p
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
> Also make sure not to trip on
>
> typedef struct {
> int len;
> char str[4];
> } String;
>
> char foo(String *s)
> {
> return s->str[42];
> }
That definitely deserves a warning.
Neil.
Zack Weinberg wrote:-
> I agree with you that (2) is a bad solution. However, I don't like
> (1) either. It is a major quiet change to the semantics of Objective
> C. I have no way of evaluating how widespread this sort of thing is,
> so I'm going to be really conservative.
>
> Also, looking
Sam Steingold wrote:-
> there is a bug in gcc/tradcpp.c which can potentially cause a segfault.
Hmmm. One down, 1632 to go. You couldn't patch all the others too?
8=)
> the patch which fixes the bug, made against the files in the GCC-3.0
> distribution, is appended to this message.
Thanks a
abbott at dima dot unige dot it wrote:-
> The -MT option really does use precisely the specified string as the target.
> It would be better if spaces (and other funny characters) were
> escaped (using backslash) in the output.
>
> Note: for my purposes it would be enough to follow the proposa
jason at catapult dot com wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From jason at catapult dot com 2005-02-09 06:27
> ---
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > This is documented to do this so this is not a bug.
>
> I thought -dD was supposed to NOT include predefined macros?
Use -undef if you don
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-14
> 05:53 ---
> The first thing is that read_file_guts mallocs the whole file which seems
> wrong. That accounts for
> 500M.
> The next problem is that keep every identifie
18 matches
Mail list logo
