On 9/30/21 1:35 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
Jason, since you approved the C++ changes, would you mind looking
over the C bits and if they look good to you giving me the green
light to commit the patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patch
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Jason, since you approved the C++ changes, would you mind looking
> over the C bits and if they look good to you giving me the green
> light to commit the patch?
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/579693.html
Th
Jason, since you approved the C++ changes, would you mind looking
over the C bits and if they look good to you giving me the green
light to commit the patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/579693.html
Thanks in advance for your help!
On 9/24/21 8:31 AM, Martin Sebor wr
Ping: Jeff, with the C++ part approved, can you please confirm your
approval with the C parts of the patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/579693.html
On 9/21/21 6:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 9/21/21 3:40 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
The C++ changes are OK.
Jef
On 9/21/21 20:34, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 9/21/21 3:40 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/17/21 12:02, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 9/8/21 2:06 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/2/21 7:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
@@ -4622,28 +4622,94 @@ warn_for_null_address (location_t location,
tree op, tsubst_flags_t compl
On 9/21/21 3:40 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/17/21 12:02, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 9/8/21 2:06 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/2/21 7:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
@@ -4622,28 +4622,94 @@ warn_for_null_address (location_t location,
tree op, tsubst_flags_t complain)
if (!warn_address
||
On 9/17/21 12:02, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 9/8/21 2:06 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/2/21 7:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
@@ -4622,28 +4622,94 @@ warn_for_null_address (location_t location,
tree op, tsubst_flags_t complain)
if (!warn_address
|| (complain & tf_warning) == 0
|| c_
On 9/8/21 2:06 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/2/21 7:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
@@ -4622,28 +4622,94 @@ warn_for_null_address (location_t location,
tree op, tsubst_flags_t complain)
if (!warn_address
|| (complain & tf_warning) == 0
|| c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings != 0
-
On 9/2/21 7:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
@@ -4622,28 +4622,94 @@ warn_for_null_address (location_t location, tree op,
tsubst_flags_t complain)
if (!warn_address
|| (complain & tf_warning) == 0
|| c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings != 0
- || warning_suppressed_p (op, OPT_Waddres
Attached is an updated patch with Jason's suggested change to use
handled_component_p(), retested on x86_64-linux and with Glibc.
Adding more tests led to more changes but hopefully also a better
end result.
I've changed the warning suppression from a cast to void* to one
to intptr_t, in part bec
10 matches
Mail list logo
