On 02/02/2017 11:09 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
It seems to me that we should be able to write these expressions
the way that's natural to us and at the same time be able to
comfortably read them both ways. As always, I fully support
consistency and following a coding style where it matters. I
j
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 11:00:44AM -0700, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 02/02/2017 10:26 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 01/30/2017 02:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > Bug 79275 - -Wformat-overflow false positive exceeding INT_MAX in
> > > glibc sysdeps/posix/tempname.c points out a false positive found
> >
On 02/02/2017 10:26 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/30/2017 02:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Bug 79275 - -Wformat-overflow false positive exceeding INT_MAX in
glibc sysdeps/posix/tempname.c points out a false positive found
during a Glibc build and caused by the checker using the upper
bound of a range o
On 01/30/2017 02:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Bug 79275 - -Wformat-overflow false positive exceeding INT_MAX in
glibc sysdeps/posix/tempname.c points out a false positive found
during a Glibc build and caused by the checker using the upper
bound of a range of precisions in string directives with st
My general inclination is to ask this to wait for gcc-8 as it is not a
regression, but instead a false positive in a new warning.
So as I mentioned in my message to Joseph, I'm going to go with Joseph &
Jakub's view that this should be considered a regression.
Okay. I'll wait for your approval
On 02/01/2017 05:40 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 01/31/2017 03:33 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/30/2017 02:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Bug 79275 - -Wformat-overflow false positive exceeding INT_MAX in
glibc sysdeps/posix/tempname.c points out a false positive found
during a Glibc build and caused by t
On 01/31/2017 03:59 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
My general inclination is to ask this to wait for gcc-8 as it is not a
regression, but instead a false positive in a new warning.
I'd hope it would be possible for current releases of GCC and glibc to
build with
On 01/31/2017 03:33 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/30/2017 02:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Bug 79275 - -Wformat-overflow false positive exceeding INT_MAX in
glibc sysdeps/posix/tempname.c points out a false positive found
during a Glibc build and caused by the checker using the upper
bound of a range o
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
> My general inclination is to ask this to wait for gcc-8 as it is not a
> regression, but instead a false positive in a new warning.
I'd hope it would be possible for current releases of GCC and glibc to
build with each other. As this seems to be a case whe
On 01/31/2017 03:42 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 03:33:04PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
My general inclination is to ask this to wait for gcc-8 as it is not a
regression, but instead a false positive in a new warning.
Well, as the warning is enabled by -Wall, the false positives
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 03:33:04PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> My general inclination is to ask this to wait for gcc-8 as it is not a
> regression, but instead a false positive in a new warning.
Well, as the warning is enabled by -Wall, the false positives in it are
regressions (while false negatives
On 01/30/2017 02:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Bug 79275 - -Wformat-overflow false positive exceeding INT_MAX in
glibc sysdeps/posix/tempname.c points out a false positive found
during a Glibc build and caused by the checker using the upper
bound of a range of precisions in string directives with st
12 matches
Mail list logo
