https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115222
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114645
--- Comment #21 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #20)
> (In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #18)
> > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #16)
> > > ... incorrectly though?
> >
> > Given that you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114645
--- Comment #18 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #16)
> ... incorrectly though?
Given that you have expressed your view that *any* attempt at using TZ is
inherently incorrect, I am not surprised that you view
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114645
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526
--- Comment #20 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Kaz Kylheku from comment #19)
Needless to say I still disagree, but I interpreted your comment #17 as
suggesting this aspect of the discussion is neither necessary nor useful for
this bug,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526
--- Comment #18 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Kaz Kylheku from comment #17)
> The standrad does not define the conversion at the *type* level.
> ...
> The program is strictly conforming because it has no problem with type.
The DRs I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526
--- Comment #16 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #15)
> In the cases where there is no statement either way, the behavior is
> undefined as a property of the translation unit (not just of the execution):
> it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526
--- Comment #14 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #11)
> I think that simply failing to say whether a value of type X may be
> converted to type Y is clearly enough for it at least to be unspecified
> whether or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526
--- Comment #10 from Harald van Dijk ---
Sorry, sent my earlier comment too soon.
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #8)
> I believe conversions between function and object pointers are undefined as
> a property of the translation unit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526
--- Comment #9 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #8)
> "rejects", in the ISO C sense, only applies to errors and pedwarns in GCC;
> not to warnings conditional on -pedantic (of which there are also some, but
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526
--- Comment #6 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #5)
> The -pedantic documentation was updated to reflect reality - that the option
> is about more than just when diagnostics are required by ISO C ("forbidden
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114363
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114163
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
--- Comment #7 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #6)
> Contrary to what was claimed in bug 66462, I don't think there ever was a
> fixed patch. Note that in bug 66462 comment 19, "June" is June 2017 but
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114104
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113959
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113760
--- Comment #13 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #12)
> Thank for your comment. In the end I went with
>
> -std=c++03 -pedantic-errors -Wextra-semi -> warnings
> -std=c++03 -pedantic -Wextra-semi -> warnings
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113760
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113830
--- Comment #14 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Bo Wang from comment #13)
> (In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #12)
> > (In reply to Bo Wang from comment #11)
> > > I have read the working draft standard of C++20
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113830
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113628
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113110
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113049
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44179
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13071
--- Comment #10 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> (In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> > > Isn't doing the extern "C" around standard C++ headers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13071
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102201
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101953
--- Comment #27 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #25)
> The option to use to detect this is -fsanitize=float-cast-overflow (note:
> I haven't tested if it detects this particular case). As per the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101953
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101638
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101864
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101864
Bug ID: 101864
Summary: Segmentation fault with -Wtraditional + glibc 2.34
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101489
--- Comment #2 from Harald van Dijk ---
Ah, thanks for the pointer. Agreed that the signatures are correct based on
that, but they are not exactly clear as they make it impossible to tell apart
the xf and tf cases. Please consider this as an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101489
Bug ID: 101489
Summary: Documentation gives wrong signatures for libgcc
float128 routines
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409
--- Comment #9 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> It has been consensus that throwing exceptions and const/pure are different
> concepts that co-exist. See for example the recent discussion at
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101376
Bug ID: 101376
Summary: Missing
Wsuggest-attribute=const/Wsuggest-attribute=pure for
throwing functions, wrong Wattributes for pure/const
throwing functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100409
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101234
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71458
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100805
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731
--- Comment #8 from Harald van Dijk ---
I take it that means there's no need for me to continue with what Richard asked
me to do?
At any rate, it looks like this fix won't be enough for GCC 12, but that's an
issue with the environment, not GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731
--- Comment #6 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #5)
> At this point a minimal fix is prefered - in principle the file
> should be a valid source to any C++ 11 capable host compiler, not
> just GCC. The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731
--- Comment #4 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
Yes, including is enough to get the build to pass. My last point in
comment #2, however, means that that leaves things in an inconsistent state and
that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731
--- Comment #2 from Harald van Dijk ---
There are more missing or wrong includes here: looking at the code, it's also
using functions from without including that, but that one gets
implicitly included for me even on this old G++ so happens to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731
--- Comment #1 from Harald van Dijk ---
The full configure line I used for reproducing this on glibc, btw:
../gcc-11.1.0/configure --prefix=$HOME/gcc-11.1.0-run CC=gcc-4.8.5
CXX=g++-4.8.5 --enable-languages=c,c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100731
Bug ID: 100731
Summary: GCC 11 fails to build using GCC 4.8 because of missing
includes
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100700
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100353
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100309
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99577
Bug ID: 99577
Summary: Non-constant (but actually constant) initializers
referencing other constants no longer diagnosed as of
GCC 8
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99362
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97755
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97370
--- Comment #3 from Harald van Dijk ---
(In reply to eggert from comment #2)
> That's so unlikely as to not be worth worrying about.
See PR 7543 for the history of that warning.
> And even if it were
> more likely, the same argument would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97370
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97279
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
58 matches
Mail list logo
