http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-18
21:47:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> So, to recap, ripping out all but one solve the duplication problem you point
> out, it solves the duplication of creation effort you point out, it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-19
07:03:30 UTC ---
grep -F "pedantic-errors" testsuite/gcc.dg/*.c
Most of those testcases are duplicated or triplicated.
Another alternative could be if -pedantic warnings always were associated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37985
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||INVALID
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-19
12:10:27 UTC ---
See: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/functions/scanf.html
s
Matches a sequence of bytes that are not
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||INVALID
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-19
12:20:26 UTC ---
No, you should write a plugin: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/plugins
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28525
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
||2012-04-19
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-19
12:43:30 UTC ---
Please find the contact address here:
http://translationproject.org/team
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33925
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-20
12:57:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> ... That's not an argument against improving the warning though. GCC's uses
> occur in system headers so warnings are suppressed, and could be worked
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53061
Bug #: 53061
Summary: [C/ObjC/C++/ObjC++] cleanup diagnostics initialization
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53061
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32614
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53060
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53063
Bug #: 53063
Summary: encode group options in the .opt files
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35441
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-21
14:53:25 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Sat Apr 21 14:53:21 2012
New Revision: 186652
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186652
Log:
2012-04-21 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR 3544
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35441
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53066
Bug #: 53066
Summary: Wshadow should not warn for shadowing an extern
function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53066
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #1 from Manuel Ló
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51033
--- Comment #21 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-22
14:56:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> With this patch, g++ passes the few __builtin_shuffle tests I tried, and
> generates generic code for non-constant indexes and special code for const
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24985
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53072
Bug #: 53072
Summary: automatically set Init() only if option was not set in
some other way
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-22
19:17:51 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Sun Apr 22 19:17:47 2012
New Revision: 186681
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186681
Log:
2012-04-22 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53075
Bug #: 53075
Summary: -Werror=pedantic should be equivalent to
-pedantic-errors
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44774
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37187
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Target|x86_6
|http://m8y.org/tmp/gcc_bug. |
|c |
CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org,
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|INVALID |
--- Comment #5 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47901
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-23
20:08:09 UTC ---
Well, I don't really see how custom_printf("") can produce any damage. It may
be an oversight when one actually wanted to print something, but it may be as
likely that one didn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
--- Comment #45 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-23
20:27:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #44)
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > moving
> > line-map out of libcpp to create a source-locatio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29467
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Manuel Lópe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53072
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-24
14:10:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> This is explicitly not a detailed design; anyone implementing it would
> need to fles
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53091
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53072
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-24
14:49:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
>
> Init() should I think ideally be just for the defaults (with _set
> replacing the present uses of -1 or 2 in Init to mean "not set").
Do you think
||2012-04-25
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-25
17:53:25 UTC ---
Where did you get your compiler?
-Wbraces is not a valid option in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-25
18:12:29 UTC ---
I can't get reproduce this.
Could you provide a small reproducible testcase?
Plus the info asked here: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#need
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17308
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-25
20:00:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Even if you decide that you are unable to warn about a call to foo(var)
> because
> the only way to analyze that var might be NULL is in the middle en
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
CC|
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-26
10:46:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > It seems to me you are right. However, I cannot see how to check for ={0} at
> > the point of the warning.
> >
> > Joseph,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-26
11:59:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, I cannot see any way to know that FOO is a constant that
> &
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53127
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47901
--- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-26
14:19:13 UTC ---
I still think it may be fine moving this warning to -Wextra, since it gives
false positives and when it does, they are hard to avoid.
Anders, you may get to convince more people
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53129
Bug #: 53129
Summary: Wself-assign
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53129
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
CC|
||2012-04-26
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-26
20:30:11 UTC ---
I am testing this
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Depends on||43772
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-26
21:58:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> I am somewhat surprised that -Wlogical-op isn't part of either -Wall
> or possibly -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17896
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53130
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-27
08:22:01 UTC ---
Author: manu
Date: Fri Apr 27 08:21:49 2012
New Revision: 186896
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186896
Log:
2012-04-25 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c/53
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53130
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53002
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53143
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53028
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-28
00:02:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> also don't test that the warning goes away with -w. We don't test the warning
> turns into an error with -Werror.
Don't we?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40989
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||53063
--- Comment #7 from Manuel Ló
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53072
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-28
00:17:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
>
> It may be possible - you'd need to avoid implicit setting marking the
> implied option as "set" - and I don't think delaying processing of Init()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53149
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2012-04-28
01:28:13 UTC ---
Doh, I was testing a revision before my commit. Anyway, the testcase just needs
adjusting. I will do that as soon as an up-to-date version finishes
bootstrapping.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53001
--- Comment #17 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Joshua Cogliati from comment #16)
> This does not bootstrap trunk yet, because gcc has floating conversion
> issues and with this being enabled by -Wextra and with -Werror, gcc fails to
> b
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Not a problem. See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#stage1warnings
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53001
--- Comment #21 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Joshua Cogliati from comment #20)
> Created attachment 30937 [details]
> Patch to add -Wfloat-conversion option against trunk
>
> Added one more changed needed to get it to compile (which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58575
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Known issue.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 58488 ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58488
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mimomorin at gmail dot com
--- Comm
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
You need to enable optimization (-O1) to get this warning.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 43361 ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43361
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nocannedmeat at gmail dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39589
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58822
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39693
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Igor, your testcase is exactly PR18501. No fix in sight unfortunately.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||igor.shevlyakov at gmail dot
com
-
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Exactly 18501. No fix in sight unfortunately.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 18501 ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58687
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43361
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||noufal at nibrahim dot net.in
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58236
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael at talamasca dot
ocis.net
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Macro unwinder known issue.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 55252 ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55252
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
PR52962 is another case where it would make more sense to give the error on the
macro expansion location rather than on the macro definition.
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
This seems to be fixed on 4.9.
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
It seems fixed since 4.6 and the testcase is too large to be useful for the
testsuite.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40635
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
This somehow got worse. Now we only warn with -O1 or -Os but not with -O2 or
-O3.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58988
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59022
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59030
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58189
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18969
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
It works in clang:
test.cc:3:16: error: void function 'foo' should not return a value
[-Wreturn-type]
void foo() { return 0; }
^ ~
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18969
--- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Breakpoint 5, check_return_expr (retval=,
no_warning=0x7fffdf2f) at /home/manuel/test1/src/gcc/cp/typeck.c:8311
B =>if (processing_template_decl)
{
current_function_returns_value = 1;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59098
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
||2013-11-16
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
The C++ parser lexes (and preprocesses) before handling the pragmas, whereas
the C parser processes
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||4.6.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Summary|"pragma GCC diagnostic |"pragma GCC diagnostic
|ignored" has no effect |ignored
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53431
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||scottbaldwin at gmail dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57241
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||2013-11-16
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
The C FE normally preprocesses and parses concurrently. But -E (only
preprocessing) is handled by a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48914
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
If this warning is given by the preprocessor during lexing, then this is a dup
of bug 53431.
||2013-11-19
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
1) and 2) should be perhaps: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/GENERIC.html
3) should be perhaps
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
I would close it as WONTFIX but simply because I think this testcase is not
specially useful. First, this bug report is already covered by other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, patch
Targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42145
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Known to work|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639
Bug 24639 depends on bug 42145, which changed state.
Bug 42145 Summary: Incorrect "may be used uninitialized warning" for a very
specific test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42145
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Something has changed in the C++ FE in the meanwhile. Could you try with this
one?
Index: name-lookup.c
===
--- name-lookup.c (revis
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59184
--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Philippe Baril Lecavalier from comment #2)
> (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #1)
>
> Thanks for the suggestions, which I will apply. I have to admit that this is
> my first ti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53001
--- Comment #28 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
Author: manu
Date: Wed Nov 20 07:15:40 2013
New Revision: 205090
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205090&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-19 Joshua J Cogliati
PR c/53001
Splitting out a -W
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53001
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59223
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430
--- Comment #19 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #18)
> This seems to be fixed in the trunk.
Is there an XPASS for gcc.dg/uninit-pr19430.c ?
Also, the testcase from bug 42079?
||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
CCP assumes y == 1 in the first testcase, this is PR18501
In the second testcase, y may be either 1 or 2, so CCP does not kick-in, and
nothing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
--- Comment #67 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
*** Bug 59225 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
701 - 800 of 2545 matches
Mail list logo
