https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105370
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|776 |772
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106371
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=105499,
||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=71003
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106332
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106140
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106301
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=101550
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
As with other ideas for special-casing certain functions, I'd just be aware of
certain portability issues, as gnulib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106298
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
Note that GCC has its own version of -Wpessimizing-move, too... any idea why
clang's version of the flag catches it, but gcc's doesn't?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78251
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bruno at clisp dot org
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34422
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45358
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> I think this was also requested in bug 45358.
Yeah that was my first thought, too; closing this as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34422
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44425
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
CC|
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
So I have been trying to enable -Woverlength-strings in my GCC build, just to
see if it would work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105939
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Oh, one more; I updated the testcase so it's now:
$ cat icculus_twitter_thread.c
#include
int main(void) {
int x = 0;
do printf("%d\n", x++); while (x < 10);
return 0;
}
const const const
g attached to it
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: egallager at gcc d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105898
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105889
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
Alternate idea: have fixincludes modify headers that still declare gets() and
mktemp() to annotate them with __attribute__((error)) or
__attribute__((warning)), if they don't already have at least one of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78155
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> I don't really see what existing warning this might fall under, except
> perhaps -Wchar-subscripts because isalpha and friend use the argument as an
> index into
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=78155
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
There's a request to do the alnum one as a front-end warning: see bug 78155
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105887
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105889
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105890
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87656
--- Comment #18 from Eric Gallager ---
-Wmissing-declarations came up as a possibility for this in IRC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105831
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Depends on: 56556, 78147, 78632, 92954, 96747, 105798
Target Milestone: ---
alias Wshadow
(also, this isn't so much a "Depends on" as it is a r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44425
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103810
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #1)
> Note also that there is a proposal for C23 (N2854) to allow such
> functions, including changing the requirements on va_start to make it
> possible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103812
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103459
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
I've been working a bit on this in my autotools-tinkering branch in my
userspace; it's nowhere near done yet, though... I'm also mirroring the branch
on GitHub:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105798
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104423
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82383
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90084
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34422
--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager ---
Current code is like this:
# Enable C extension for fixed-point arithmetic.
AC_ARG_ENABLE(fixed-point,
[AS_HELP_STRING([--enable-fixed-point],
[enable fixed-point arithmetic extension to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34422
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2008-01-22 00:58:46 |2022-5-24
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37036
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jay from comment #4)
> Here is a lame workaround that works, from my Python wrapper:
>
> if (Host == Target) and (Host != Build):
> ExtraConfig += " -with-sysroot=/"
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90835
--- Comment #32 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #26)
> That's one option, certainly easier for the users. At the least, the
> issue should be documented in install.texi so they can add
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82383
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
Priority: P3
Component: libbacktrace
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: ian at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
libbacktrace/README says:
"As of September 2012, libbacktrace only supports ELF execut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44425
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
This would be done in the top-level configure script... where it looks like it
already does this for FreeBSD targets?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102665
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
Hm, looking in gcc/configure.ac (where these are defined), it looks like
there's a bunch of other flags that this bug could apply to, too...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34422
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93082
--- Comment #13 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #12)
> OK I'll open a separate bug for that and self-assign
(that's bug 105719 now, for reference)
at gcc dot gnu.org |egallager at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #31 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #30)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #29)
> > (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #28)
> > > (I recently got a new laptop and am now o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48626
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
||support it)
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |egallager at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> > fixed point support is only currently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80782
--- Comment #15 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #12)
> please could you be more specific about exactly what's not working?
> - i.e if you're on an older version of the OS.
> - version of Xcode.
So I'm assuming
at gcc dot gnu.org |egallager at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> Patches go to the gcc-patches mailing list if you still want to see this
> fixed
Actually I guess I can try taking it myself
||easyhack
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |egallager at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
> > Confirmed, they should be listed here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58312
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |egallager at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21549
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Configure options hard to |Configure options are
at gcc dot gnu.org |egallager at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18469
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |egallager at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
Mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105719
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |egallager at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Mine.
: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: bkorb at gnu dot org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: *-*-darwin
This is split off from bug 93082. Basically, if there is a header that needs to
be fixincluded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90835
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #29 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51776
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44252
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12300
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93082
--- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #10)
> I do not currently have a plan to try and build a second fix includes tree
> for Frameworks, but happy to review patches if someone else does :)
OK I'll open a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105710
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61469
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87504
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #10 from Eric
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
alias Wtautological-compate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105557
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93082
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
|--Wdiscarded-qualifiers and |-Wdiscarded-qualifiers and
|Wincompatible-pointer-types |Wincompatible-pointer-types
|missing important detail|missing important detail
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80528
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83308
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105590
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49566
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
Does this still need to be in WAITING?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102537
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
This is probably another one of those issues with how the preprocessor works in
C++ mode in general; see for example bug 71003 and bug 87274
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71176
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xerofoify at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87656
--- Comment #14 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #11)
> -Wold-style-definition
>
> KnR style function definitions have been deprecated for about 35 years.
>
> Yes, there is a warning for it in gcc, but that
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords||build
--- Comment #21 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #20)
> JIT definitely works with 12 on m68k again - and probably 13. So, the title
> is misleading.
ok, retitled
|overflow or erroneous
|memory access) |memory access)
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #7)
> This has been fixed on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98341
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99950
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Option -Wchar-subscripts|Option -Wchar-subscripts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78155
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|missing warning on invalid |missing warning on invalid
,
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
Apparently this issue affects the Linux kernel:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2022-April/238605.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105401
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Actually never mind about point 3: I do actually get warnings from -Winline
when I turn on optimizations:
$ /usr/local/bin/gcc -c -Wall -Wextra -Wc++-compat -Winline -O2
labels_as_values.c
Keywords: diagnostic, documentation
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Continuing my GCC documentation readthrough, I'm now up to the d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105377
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105369
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #0)
> Anyways, that's it for the plain-C code from that page; I'll open a separate
> bug for the C++ if it turns out that that needs one, too.
OK I opened bug 105370
Keywords: diagnostic, documentation
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This is the C++ counterpart to bug 105369. Code is taken from GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105369
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
Oh, I should probably add something to test the sentence that says, "If you
don’t know the type of the operand, you can still do this, but you must use
typeof or __auto_type (see Typeof)," too...
Keywords: diagnostic, documentation
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
So, I'm going back to reading GCC documentation again; I last left off
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105278
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #2)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #1)
> > -Wfloat-equal gets you a warning, as does -Wdouble-promotion:
>
> Thanks for that. This looks like another
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87404
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason from comment #8)
> Eric: I filed bug 87983. I think it makes sense to mark it as a duplicate
> only if this one covers both C and C++, right now the "component" for this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105278
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
||a/show_bug.cgi?id=61864
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
For more discussion of how "default" branches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103027
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
Example bug that this warning flag could have found, if the string involved
were a C string: https://twitter.com/nyt_first_said/status/1513148451210637313
||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Note:
> int n = n;
> Is a documented way of having the uninitiated warning to not happen.
...although there are requests for a separate flag to warn in c
201 - 300 of 3635 matches
Mail list logo
