[Bug c++/47734] New: no comparisons like X=Y=Z do not have their mathematical meaning warning in c++

2011-02-14 Thread sds at gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47734 Summary: no comparisons like X=Y=Z do not have their mathematical meaning warning in c++ Product: gcc Version: 4.1.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/35708] New: jump to label enters catch block

2008-03-26 Thread sds at gnu dot org
Version: 4.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sds at gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35708

[Bug c++/35708] jump to label enters catch block

2008-03-26 Thread sds at gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from sds at gnu dot org 2008-03-26 20:44 --- so? the objects are created, used and discarded on the fly. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35708

[Bug middle-end/14236] dynamically-sized arrays break alloca()

2005-02-14 Thread sds at gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From sds at gnu dot org 2005-02-14 17:47 --- (In reply to comment #9) - memory allocated with alloca() is released at the time the function that calls alloca() returns oh - I didn't know that. I always thought that alloca()ted memory is released by the next

[Bug c/19881] New: strange warning about alloca

2005-02-10 Thread sds at gnu dot org
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: sds at gnu dot org CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19881

[Bug c/19881] strange warning about alloca

2005-02-10 Thread sds at gnu dot org
-- What|Removed |Added CC||bruno at clisp dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19881

[Bug middle-end/14236] dynamically-sized arrays break alloca()

2005-02-10 Thread sds at gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From sds at gnu dot org 2005-02-10 21:13 --- (In reply to comment #3) Well, yes, it is documented, but that doesn't make it right (although I know people that will qualify documented bugs as features :-). IMHO, it's still wrong, especially now that variable