--- Comment #13 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-29 18:14 ---
Subject: Bug 19976
Author: jsm28
Date: Sun Mar 29 18:13:43 2009
New Revision: 145254
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145254
Log:
PR c/456
PR c/5675
PR c/19976
PR
--- Comment #14 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-29 18:19 ---
Fixed for 4.5.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-24 19:36 ---
Subject: Bug 19976
Author: jsm28
Date: Fri Oct 24 19:34:52 2008
New Revision: 141349
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141349
Log:
PR c/456
PR c/5675
PR c/19976
PR
--- Comment #11 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-24 00:07 ---
Testing a patch for 4.5.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-06 09:52
---
I think for the 0*x case, we need the infrastructure provided by PR 32643 and
then set folding_initializer when we are inside an enum.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-11 00:31 ---
I tried setting TREE_OVERFLOW on a new node created from the zero of the
division by zero and then replacing the zero in 1/0 by this new node. It didn't
work, it seems that somehow the node that represents the result
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-11 20:52 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
int x;
enum e { E = 0 * x };
which currently compiles without even a warning using -pedantic-errors.
This is exactly the sort of thing that Joseph's struct c_expr were intended
to
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-03 21:02 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Hi Manual,
Manuel (or Manu) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel
not manual: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual
:-)
The real issue is that OPT_Wdiv_by_zero needs to be enabled by
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-12-03 21:05 ---
Subject: Re: integer division by zero in subexpression should
be overflow
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
The real issue is that OPT_Wdiv_by_zero needs to be enabled by -pedantic
in
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-01 02:37 ---
Hi Roger,
I am not sure how we are going to handle this.
First, the 1/0 is detected at int_const_binop at line 1509
--
case ROUND_DIV_EXPR:
if (int2h == 0 int2l == 0)
--- Comment #3 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2006-12-01 03:25 ---
Hi Manual,
This needs to be handled in the front-ends, and in fact is already handled
by the front-ends. In c-typeck.c:build_binary_op, I see:
case TRUNC_DIV_EXPR:
case CEIL_DIV_EXPR:
case FLOOR_DIV_EXPR:
Hi Manual,
This needs to be handled in the front-ends, and in fact is already handled
^
should
by the front-ends. In c-typeck.c:build_binary_op, I see:
case TRUNC_DIV_EXPR:
case CEIL_DIV_EXPR:
case FLOOR_DIV_EXPR:
case ROUND_DIV_EXPR:
case
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-12-01 03:32
---
Subject: Re: integer division by zero in subexpression should be overflow
Hi Manual,
This needs to be handled in the front-ends, and in fact is already handled
^
should
by the
--- Comment #5 from roger at eyesopen dot com 2006-12-01 04:04 ---
This needs to be handled in the front-ends...
^ should
^^ can only be
I was thinking of a slightly weaker form of need/must.
But there are two issues here. The division by zero is one, but
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-15
21:18 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
15 matches
Mail list logo
