https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
--- Comment #26 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #25)
> (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #6)
> > For:
> >
> > void f(){
> > int i = 2;
> > (i+i);
> > }
>
> This case is fixed on the trunk:
>
> : In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #25 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
--- Comment #24 from nightstrike ---
Ah.. I missed Comment #13, the PR is still open because of a slightly different
test. In any case, if it worked in 4.8, it should be a regression.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
nightstrike changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.4 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.3 |4.9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
GCC 4.9.3 has been released.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.2 |4.9.3
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.1 |4.9.2
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.9.0 |4.9.1
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
I don't think you simply want a better fix for 54583, because for the testcase
in #Comment 13 the new conditional setting TREE_NO_WARNING isn't used.
Otherwise, I think it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
--- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #15)
I don't think you simply want a better fix for 54583, because for the
testcase in #Comment 13 the new conditional setting TREE_NO_WARNING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
Yes, I know that. What I'm saying is that other code may want to see that
TREE_NO_WARNING honored, the issue doesn't have much to do with 54583 per se.
In my personal opinion
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58950
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9 Regression] Missing|Missing statement
16 matches
Mail list logo
