--- Comment #15 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-30 09:15 ---
Fix depends, add keyword, add alias Wundefined.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-30 09:26 ---
I think -Wundefined should warn for any potential undefined and unspecified
behaviour. I know they are not the same according to the standard but for a
practical point of view they both result in a behaviour that is
--- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 14:24 ---
Another candidate to warn for undefined behaviour PR 968 ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30334
--- Comment #14 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-15 14:25 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Another candidate to warn for undefined behaviour PR 968 ?
Argh, I meant PR 986.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30334
--- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-26 13:01 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Subject: Re: Request for -Wundefined
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Not sure about this one either, there seems to be a warning in C++
| but I am not sure
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-17 13:47 ---
Perhaps Wundefined should warn for PR 29465 ?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-17 13:49 ---
Also, not sure whether Wundefined or Wsequence-points should handle PR 24016.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30334
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-17 13:52 ---
Another candidate is PR 30457.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30334
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-17 14:00 ---
Not so sure about this one PR 12411
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30334
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-17 14:04 ---
Not sure about this one either, there seems to be a warning in C++ but I am not
sure what option controls it now: PR 30368.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30334
--- Comment #7 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-01-17 14:06 ---
Subject: Re: Request for -Wundefined
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Perhaps Wundefined should warn for PR 29465 ?
Where feasable with minimum overhead, yes.
-- Gaby
--
--- Comment #8 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-01-17 14:08 ---
Subject: Re: Request for -Wundefined
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Also, not sure whether Wundefined or Wsequence-points should handle PR 24016.
unspecified beahviour is not the same as
--- Comment #9 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-01-17 14:09 ---
Subject: Re: Request for -Wundefined
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Another candidate is PR 30457.
agreed.
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30334
--- Comment #10 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-01-17 14:26 ---
Subject: Re: Request for -Wundefined
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Not so sure about this one PR 12411
order of evaluation is unspecified, should go under the
sequence-points umbrella.
--- Comment #11 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-01-17 14:29 ---
Subject: Re: Request for -Wundefined
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Not sure about this one either, there seems to be a warning in C++
| but I am not sure what option controls it now: PR
--- Comment #1 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-30 19:52 ---
working on a patch.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
16 matches
Mail list logo
