https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114873
--- Comment #5 from Halalaluyafail3 ---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #4)
> These are not meant to be valid C (although the relevant requirement isn't a
> Constraint, so a diagnostic isn't required); see the discussion in DR#341.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114873
--- Comment #3 from Halalaluyafail3 ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> clang errors out:
> :3:24: error: star modifier used outside of function prototype
> 3 | void bar(_Atomic(int(*)[*])(*)[*]);
> |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114873
Bug ID: 114873
Summary: Incorrect warning generated for [*] array when in
atomic or typeof type specifier for a parameter
declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114857
Bug ID: 114857
Summary: Pointer attributes and qualifiers are parsed in wrong
order
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114723
--- Comment #6 from Halalaluyafail3 ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Oh this is with `-g -std=c23`, godbolt has an implicit -g.
I was not aware of this, thanks for letting me know. Do you know of any way to
disable it? Also it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114723
--- Comment #3 from Halalaluyafail3 ---
Just tested on godbolt again and it cause an ICE, so perhaps something was
changed to cause an ICE again. Also upon thinking about the implications of
these types being compatible they probably shouldn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114816
Bug ID: 114816
Summary: Non-standard behavior with void arguments
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114808
Halalaluyafail3 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114808
--- Comment #6 from Halalaluyafail3 ---
* Paragraph 5 instead of Paragraph 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114808
--- Comment #5 from Halalaluyafail3 ---
I made this bug report because of the warning that clang has, but the following
paragraph may allow this:
> If, in the declaration "T D1", D1 has the form
> D ( parameter-type-list )
> or
> D (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114808
Bug ID: 114808
Summary: Qualified void return type is not diagnosed
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114723
--- Comment #2 from Halalaluyafail3 ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> This seems to be fixed recently?
I just tested the code on godbolt again, and it doesn't seem to generate an ICE
anymore. However, it does seem to generate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114723
Bug ID: 114723
Summary: ICE when checking for type compatibility with
structure that contains flexible array member
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114325
Bug ID: 114325
Summary: std::format gives incorrect results for negative
numbers
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114315
Bug ID: 114315
Summary: Attributes should be diagnosed when placed in the
middle of declaration specifiers
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113571
--- Comment #3 from Halalaluyafail3 ---
The way the standard is written doesn't make any distinction between a
preprocessor constant expression and a language constant expression (from what
I have seen). The standard just says integral constant
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113571
Bug ID: 113571
Summary: Preprocessor if directive does not correctly recognize
all C++ integral constant expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113011
Bug ID: 113011
Summary: main declared with enumerated type is not accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112841
Bug ID: 112841
Summary: typeof_unqual is not removing qualifiers from array
types
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112839
Bug ID: 112839
Summary: Unable to default initialize member variable in
specific circumstances
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112556
--- Comment #1 from Halalaluyafail3 ---
This bug also seems to happen with boolean types:
void*p=(_Bool)0;
Furthermore, this bug only seems to happen when the type
of the null pointer constant is an enumeration or boolean type:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112556
Bug ID: 112556
Summary: Null pointer constants with enumeration type are not
accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
22 matches
Mail list logo
