Synopsis: Internal error during compilation of assigment expression
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: neil
State-Changed-When: Thu Jun 7 23:26:32 2001
State-Changed-Why:
Submitter reports fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view&pr=1681&database=gcc
Synopsis: Bug#87063: Info received and FILED only
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: neil
State-Changed-When: Thu Jul 19 00:53:03 2001
State-Changed-Why:
Yawn. We really must get this fixed. Not a bug report.
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view&
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':
diagnostics are accurate.
The empty source file diagnostic is clearly incorrect, it has text
in it 8-) However I think it's quite logical it appear last as that
it where it can be discovered.
The backslash diagnostic is clearly bogus too.
Neil.
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.
be placed anywhere a statement can.
>
> This is a dup of bug 29062.
It's going to keep getting reported until the diagnostic improves and
shows that it's not the compiler that is confused.
Neil.
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'
But IIRC this is invalid code as variable defintions are not allowed right
> after a label.
> void f(int i)
> {
> a:
> struct a *b;
> }
>
>
> In fact This is a dup of bug 7508.
Really this error message needs to be much better. Otherwise this
PR will keep coming back.
Neil.
e the
> Rationale says that the kind of implementation we have now is supposed to be
> permitted, and jsm said
> he'd file a DR. How's that going?
I very much doubt this is a defect. Just because it doesn't fit your
implementation...
Neil.
as said we should not change it. It looks like
> DJ is saying the same in the new thread which shows the real issues with the
> other compilers implemenation.
I've said we should change it, I don't work for Apple. Please stop
trying to claim your opinion is some kind of consensus.
Neil.
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.
ke these. IMO the code was already
quite efficient.
Neil.
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.
ort.
Two things:
1) Is it a good idea to introduce yet another token type, when CPP_OTHER
would do (from what I can see)?
2) Don't you just drop stray @ tokens, in e.g.
int x = y @ + z;
without a diagnostic? (And what about in C?)
Neil.
age.
Thanks a lot. I'll take a look and apply it soon if all's OK.
Neil.
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
oblem comes from.
> No there is no leak we keep a reference to all of thes identifiers but this
> seems like we should not.
Not doing either of these involves a major rework of cpplib FWIW.
I happen to think it would be beneficial, but I also think that the
whole approach CPP takes needs rethinking.
Neil.
construcutor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at fnxweb dot com
GCC build triplet: i386-redhat-linux
GCC host triplet: i386-redhat-linux
GCC target triplet: i386-redhat-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25409
--- Comment #1 from neil at fnxweb dot com 2005-12-14 11:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=10484)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10484&action=view)
Example of the crash
Do 'make' in top level of build tree.
'make symbolcheck' afte
--- Comment #10 from neil at fnxweb dot com 2005-12-14 11:47 ---
For ref., I've just raised PR 25409 which may possible be a dup. of this
problem. It's nothing to do with Solaris, though, so I didn't just add the
details here.
--
neil at fnxweb dot com changed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65974
Neil Bird changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||neil at fnxweb dot com
--- Comment #1 from
--- Comment #3 from neil at fnxweb dot com 2006-03-08 12:41 ---
Was it compiled up to use mt_allocator? I won't have the time to check again
for a short while.
If it's considered a good idea to use -pthreads, then it ought really to have
it's info-page entry updated
--- Comment #7 from neil at fnxweb dot com 2006-03-20 08:48 ---
Fair enough; for the record, I did spend an obscene amount of time trying to
make the example more straightforward, but *any* simplification over what I
attached worked OK.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #7 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-05-18 22:22
---
Subject: Re: variable previously declared `static' redeclared `extern' is
valid ISO C - 3.4 and 4.0 regression
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
> Hmm, I think this causes the following inval
--- Comment #3 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-05-21 23:17
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] incorrect warning about constness of
pointer to an array in a const struct
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
>
> --- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc do
--- Comment #8 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-05-24 12:55
---
Subject: Re: New: bogus 'backslash-newline at end of file' warning
sabre at nondot dot org wrote:-
> $ gcc bug.c -Wall -pedantic -fsyntax-only -trigraphs -std=c99
>
> yields:
> bug.c:
--- Comment #3 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 22:18 ---
The standard talks about the groups controlled by conditionals being skipped.
There is no conditional controlling the #elif - it is at the top level - so I
see nothing permitting its non-evaluation.
--
http
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38243
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38246
--- Comment #7 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-01-09 04:38
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Internal compiler error (segfault)
instead of error message
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
> Sadly I have no idea what this variable is for, and Joseph did not
--- Comment #3 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-28 23:47 ---
Tokenization is correct on reprocessing since ?= is not a token.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-28 23:48 ---
Tokenization is correct since preprocessed output has been through stages 1-3
and starts at stage 4. If you're passing -trigraphs then your command line is
incorrect.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org ch
--- Comment #8 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-29 05:02 ---
This is not a bug. If you are preprocessing preprocessed output, you must use
-fpreprocessed as documented. Otherwise many other things will go wrong, not
just this. The bug is on your command line.
--
neil at
--- Comment #6 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-08-23 13:16
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Preprocessor doesn't parse tokens
correctly?
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 20
--- Comment #2 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-09-13 22:27
---
Subject: Re: Parse error after label and variable declaration
schwab at suse dot de wrote:-
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from schwab at suse dot de 2006-09-13 15:32 ---
> A label can only
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29116
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29125
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29126
--- Comment #1 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 14:02 ---
Fixed in current SVN.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 14:02 ---
Fixed in current SVN.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
NCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129
--- Comment #5 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 15:13 ---
Confirmed
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-03-05
--- Comment #3 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-09-19 13:04
---
Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Strictly conforming code rejected
joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:-
> > foo.c:1: error: '[*]' not allowed in other than a declaration
>
> As th
sion: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29237
--- Comment #2 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-10-12 22:27
---
Subject: Re: parser bug for variable declaration immediately following case
statement in switch block
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29467
--- Comment #1 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 12:25 ---
Not a bug - just 2 elements are initialized, the NUL is dropped.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2006-10-14 16:19
---
Subject: Re: -ansi -pedantic accepts _Bool without diagnostic
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
>
> --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 15:29
> ---
--- Comment #5 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-11 03:45 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> We probably don't even get it right for all cases with DECIMAL_DIG digits for
> all long double formats (required by Annex F).
(In reply to comment #2)
> My reading of
--- Comment #6 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-18 15:24 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I believe more than 160 bits are required to get even single-precision numbers
> right with DECIMAL_DIG digits precision and an exponent. I'm going to try and
> prove this
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-02-17
11:34 ---
Subject: Re: incorrect overflow warning
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-17
> 03:14 ---
> No th
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-02-17
14:00 ---
Subject: Re: incorrect overflow warning
schlie at comcast dot net wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-02-17 13:20
> ---
> (In reply to comment
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-02-17
15:12 ---
Subject: Re: incorrect overflow warning
schlie at comcast dot net wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-02-17 14:33
> ---
> (In reply to comment
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20077
oduct: gcc
Version: 3.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu do
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-02-21
23:00 ---
Subject: Re: UCNs not recognized in identifiers (c++/c99)
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
> * The greedy algorithm applies for lexing UCNs: for example,
> a\U000z is three preprocessing
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-03-01
12:39 ---
Subject: Re: error generated for storage class specified for function parameter
schlie at comcast dot net wrote:-
> Yes I understand. However it seems somewhat ironic that "static const"
&
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-03-01
23:13 ---
Subject: Re: __LINE__ implementation flaky.
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-01
> 17:16 ---
> Oute
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-03-01
23:36 ---
Subject: Re: __LINE__ implementation flaky.
neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-03-01
> 23:13 ---
>
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-04-05
11:31 ---
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR preprocessor/19475
Jakub Jelinek wrote:-
> Is there some limitation on how many bytes or error messages
> dejagnu groks or something?
I think it gets confused by the
--- Additional Comments From neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-13 13:29
---
Not a bug - you misunderstand basename.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Version: 4.1.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35312
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35313
--- Comment #4 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-23 14:03 ---
To be honest this isn't even a disputed case from what I can see. I doubt you
can find a serious C implementation (i.e. tcc etc. doesn't count) that will do
what you expect.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot o
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39646
ty: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39647
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31870
oduct: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31871
--- Comment #2 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 05:01 ---
The space is required by the standard. Is this a regression? I believe GCC
used to get this right but I could be wrong.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31869
--- Comment #2 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2007-05-09 23:39
---
Subject: Re: Failure to diagnose taking address of register variable
bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:-
> Uh, can you elaborate? We get the warning you want if we have
> int d (void) { register i
--- Comment #4 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-10 00:00 ---
Agreed it's minor; I think I flagged the PR that way.
I'm not sure but I suspect it indicates that the pointer decay is not
happening. If so and you were using GCC to do source code analysis, you wou
ummary: offsetof buglet
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bu
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-09-12
12:42 ---
Subject: Re: Is this right?
igodard at pacbell dot net wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-09-12 03:17
> ---
> In the case you give I count
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-09-15
22:50 ---
Subject: Re: switch and struct
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:
&g
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-09-15
22:53 ---
Subject: Re: UCNs not recognized in identifiers (c++/c99)
geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-15
> 22:34
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-09-15
22:58 ---
Subject: Re: UCNs not recognized in identifiers (c++/c99)
joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:-
> I don't believe I said I'd file a DR unless I saw a defect. There is no
> defect bec
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24293
--- Comment #32 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-10-26 23:07
---
Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] back-slash newline extension can't be
removed
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
> > That would be the consensus from Andrew, not from people concerne
--- Additional Comments From neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-24 14:56
---
Documented behaviour.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-24 22:24
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Yup, it's documented. However, it's still silently accepted even with
-pedantic, and the language doesn't
> permit that.
My copy of the standard onl
n of valid array declaration.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-26 15:11
---
(In reply to comment #0)
> With -fsyntax-only GCC erroneously rejects the following array 'x' as having
> non-constant size. Its size should evaluate to 1.
>
> int
> bar (int v)
>
tatus: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22249
violation of constraint 6.516p2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC
rning
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-26 12:13
---
I meant to add -Wall to the warning list.
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Redundant
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-07-28
22:46 ---
Subject: Re: The -Wunused (value computed is not used) option missed an
important case
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-08-13
05:30 ---
Subject: Re: Declaration within case statement produces syntax error
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-12
&
--- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-08-27
05:44 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] File not included when file with same name
is included before
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:-
>
> --- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu d
rsions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35908
--- Comment #2 from neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2008-04-12 04:40
---
Subject: Re: Dubious charset conversions
joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:-
> > GCC accepts the following with -ansi -pedantic -Wall without diagnostics
> >
> > #include
> >
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36088
--- Comment #1 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-15 02:54 ---
Chris - unless I'm missing something I disagree. The
, ## __VA_ARGS__
token sequence is being eaten in its entirety by the empty argument. Then
between "format" and the ')' on the #
--- Comment #2 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-15 02:56 ---
Never mind, I see your point. The comma isn't being eaten, right.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36320
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25897
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
