http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44362
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-04 18:43 ---
Subject: Bug 44362
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Jun 4 18:42:42 2010
New Revision: 160289
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160289
Log:
PR c++/44362
* call.c (build_conditional_expr): I
--- Comment #6 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-04 00:46 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Ok, let me open another PR. Would you suggest somebody to add in CC?
Maybe we should have a meta-bug for all the issues with this warning flag.
So that'd be at least this one, PR 44361, an
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-04 00:28
---
Ok, let me open another PR. Would you suggest somebody to add in CC?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44362
--- Comment #4 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-04 00:25 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Is this also the same issue? Probably not, but it causes tons of warnings in
> the libstdc++ testsuite (with -Wall in CXXFLAGS) and seems bogus to me.
I don't see any connection (beyond th
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-06-04 00:17
---
Is this also the same issue? Probably not, but it causes tons of warnings in
the libstdc++ testsuite (with -Wall in CXXFLAGS) and seems bogus to me.
struct ratio
{
static const int a = 3;
};
const int ratio
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-03 18:01 ---
*** Bug 44405 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-01 13:58 ---
More complete testcase:
/* { dg-options "-Wunused" } */
/* { dg-do compile } */
int
f1 (int u, int v)
{
int a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i;
a = u;
b = v;
c = u;
d = v;
e = u;
f = v;
g = u == 6 ? a : b;
h
