https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55422
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55422
--- Comment #7 from cookevillain at yahoo dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> The first example is invalid C90 anyways:
> t4.c:10:3: error: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code [-Wpedantic]
I forgot to mention it in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55422
cookevillain at yahoo dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.4.3 |5.4.0
--- Comment #6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55422
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-09
01:29:44 UTC ---
The first example is invalid C90 anyways:
t4.c:10:3: error: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code [-Wpedantic]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55422
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55422
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-21
12:44:31 UTC ---
Looks like the first example is just an undefined behavior in which case GCC
isn't obliged to issue an error.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55422
--- Comment #4 from cookevillain at yahoo dot com 2012-11-21 21:53:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Looks like the first example is just an undefined behavior in which case GCC
isn't obliged to issue an error.
Quite true. I just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55422
--- Comment #1 from cookevillain at yahoo dot com 2012-11-20 23:55:16 UTC ---
gcc -v output, omitted in the report:
-
Using built-in specs.
Target: i486-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure
