[Bug c/80868] "Duplicate const" warning emitted in `const typeof(foo) bar;`

2018-09-25 Thread george.burgess.iv at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80868 George Burgess IV changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/80868] New: "Duplicate const" warning emitted in `const typeof(foo) bar;`

2017-05-23 Thread george.burgess.iv at gmail dot com
ty: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: george.burgess.iv at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Minimal test-case (repros with 7.1: https://godbolt.org/g/A2dTCP): $ cat tc.c const int i; const typeof(i) j; $ gcc

[Bug c/80868] "Duplicate const" warning emitted in `const typeof(foo) bar;`

2017-05-24 Thread george.burgess.iv at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80868 --- Comment #3 from George Burgess IV --- Thanks for the response! From the standpoint of consistency, I agree. My point is more that GCC isn't bound by the standard to be as strict with `typeof`, and making an exception for `typeof` here would

[Bug c/83223] New: -fconserve-stack outlined code isn't dropped if it's logically unreachable

2017-11-29 Thread george.burgess.iv at gmail dot com
Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: george.burgess.iv at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- GCC version: Reproed on godbolt's GCC trunk, 7.2, and 4.9. Test case (godbolt link, if you'd prefer: