https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maxim.prohorenko at gmail dot
com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
--- Comment #20 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 81250 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely ---
cppcheck isn't a compiler, it just does simple pattern matching and maybe uses
whitelists/blacklists of types. I don't think anything it does is really
relevant to GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
Jon Grant changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jg at jguk dot org
--- Comment #18 from Jon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse ---
I wonder if attributes unused / warn_unused should be automatically inherited
by classes when a member or base has it (with various rules, maybe unused has
priority over warn_unused). For a tuple of locks or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I missed this update, sorry.
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #15)
> Jonathan, what's the next step? It sounds as though you don't think
> decorating nearly every libstdc++ class makes sense.
I'd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
--- Comment #15 from Martin Sebor ---
The core bits of this feature are in place but the std::string test case is
still not diagnosed because string has non-trivial ctor and dtor and isn't
decorated using the warn_unused attribute.
Jonathan,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> Which are the relevant classes? It seems to me that we want to tag almost
> everything except a few RAII types such as std::lock_guard and
> std::unique_lock,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Sergio Martins from comment #11)
> Did the patch for [warn_unused] get in ?
Yes: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C_002b_002b-Attributes.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
Sergio Martins changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at bobbyperu dot info
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Doc patch posted to https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01184.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
--- Comment #5 from Lubos Lunak l.lunak at suse dot cz ---
Gcc patch is in, r200941.
Keeping open for libstdc++ to use the attribute for its relevant classes. I can
try to submit a patch when I find the time, but I doubt I'll get past the most
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Which are the relevant classes? It seems to me that we want to tag almost
everything except a few RAII types such as std::lock_guard and
std::unique_lock, which would be quite
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
std::lock_guard that is unused is useless.
Oops, I meant is *not* useless! Sorry.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
--- Comment #8 from Lubos Lunak l.lunak at suse dot cz ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
Which are the relevant classes? It seems to me that we want to tag almost
everything except a few RAII types such as std::lock_guard and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I can fix the docs some time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---
I guess this could be the right time to properly submit something to
gcc-patches (for 4.9)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-07
14:54:59 UTC ---
Patches should go to gcc-patches. But I'm afraid it's too late for something
like this to make 4.8.0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
Lubos Lunak l.lunak at suse dot cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203
--- Comment #2 from Lubos Lunak l.lunak at suse dot cz 2012-11-04 11:04:52
UTC ---
Created attachment 28609
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28609
gcc patch
22 matches
Mail list logo
