On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 17/08/17 15:56, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:52 AM, Joseph Myers
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
+@item -Wpacked-not-aligned @r{(C, C++, Objective-C and Objective-C++
only)}
+@opindex W
On 17/08/17 15:56, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:52 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>>> +@item -Wpacked-not-aligned @r{(C, C++, Objective-C and Objective-C++ only)}
>>> +@opindex Wpacked-not-aligned
>>> +@opindex Wno-packed-not-aligned
>>> +Warn if a s
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:56 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:52 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>>> +@item -Wpacked-not-aligned @r{(C, C++, Objective-C and Objective-C++ only)}
>>> +@opindex Wpacked-not-aligned
>>> +@opindex Wno-packed-not-aligned
>
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:52 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> +@item -Wpacked-not-aligned @r{(C, C++, Objective-C and Objective-C++ only)}
>> +@opindex Wpacked-not-aligned
>> +@opindex Wno-packed-not-aligned
>> +Warn if a structure field with explicitly specified a
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, H.J. Lu wrote:
> +@item -Wpacked-not-aligned @r{(C, C++, Objective-C and Objective-C++ only)}
> +@opindex Wpacked-not-aligned
> +@opindex Wno-packed-not-aligned
> +Warn if a structure field with explicitly specified alignment in a
> +packed struct or union is misaligned. For e
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 03:44:57PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> > +@code{warning: alignment 8 of 'struct foo' is less than 16}.
>
> I think @samp is better than @code for warnings, throughout, since they
> aren't pieces of program code.
Done.
>
> > +Thi
On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, H.J. Lu wrote:
> +@code{warning: alignment 8 of 'struct foo' is less than 16}.
I think @samp is better than @code for warnings, throughout, since they
aren't pieces of program code.
> +This warning can be disabled by @option{-Wno-if-not-aligned}.
> +The @code{warn_if_not_al
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 05:31:34PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Where do we go from here?
> > >
> > >
> > > Other than the C and C++ maintainers needing to approve the patch
> > > I can't
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>
> >> Where do we go from here?
> >
> >
> > Other than the C and C++ maintainers needing to approve the patch
> > I can't think of anything else.
>
> Hi Joseph, Jason,
>
> The complete patch is at
>
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>> Where do we go from here?
>
>
> Other than the C and C++ maintainers needing to approve the patch
> I can't think of anything else.
Hi Joseph, Jason,
The complete patch is at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-06/msg00541.html
Is
On 06/09/2017 07:31 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/08/2017 11:00 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/06/2017 04:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 6,
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 06/08/2017 11:00 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/06/2017 04:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at
On 06/08/2017 11:00 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/06/2017 04:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/06/2017 10:59 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 6, 2
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 06/06/2017 04:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/06/2017 10:59 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 06/06/2017 04:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/06/2017 10:59 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
>
> On 06/06/201
On 06/06/2017 04:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/06/2017 10:59 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/06/2017 10:07 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/05/2017 11:45 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Jun 5, 201
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 06/06/2017 10:59 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/06/2017 10:07 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/05/2017 11:45 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 a
On 06/06/2017 10:59 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/06/2017 10:07 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/05/2017 11:45 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Joseph Myers
wrote:
The new attribute needs documentation. Should the test be in
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 06/06/2017 10:07 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>
>> On 06/05/2017 11:45 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Joseph Myers
>>> wrote:
The new attribute needs documentation. Should the test be in
c-c++-common
On 06/06/2017 10:07 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/05/2017 11:45 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Joseph Myers
wrote:
The new attribute needs documentation. Should the test be in
c-c++-common
This feature does support C++. But C++ compiler issues a slightly
different warni
On 06/05/2017 11:45 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
The new attribute needs documentation. Should the test be in c-c++-common
This feature does support C++. But C++ compiler issues a slightly
different warning at a different location.
or does this fe
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> The new attribute needs documentation. Should the test be in c-c++-common
This feature does support C++. But C++ compiler issues a slightly
different warning at a different location.
> or does this feature not support C++?
>
Here is the up
The new attribute needs documentation. Should the test be in c-c++-common
or does this feature not support C++?
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
__attribute__((warn_if_not_aligned(N))) issues a warning if the field
in a struct or union is not aligned to N:
typedef unsigned long long __u64
__attribute__((aligned(4),warn_if_not_aligned(8)));
struct foo
{
int i1;
int i2;
__u64 x;
};
__u64 is aligned to 4 bytes. But inside struct fo
24 matches
Mail list logo
