On Tue, 6 May 2014, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 11:37:58PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
As a matter of QoI we should also diagnose use of _Atomic in the return
type or argument types of main (something I deferred doing in the initial
_Atomic support).
Ok, I opened
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 11:37:58PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
As a matter of QoI we should also diagnose use of _Atomic in the return
type or argument types of main (something I deferred doing in the initial
_Atomic support).
Ok, I opened PR61077 and I'm taking it. But I wonder if I
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 03:11:15PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
OK. Though in practice I doubt this is going to catch many real
bugs. Are people still giving main a stdargs style signature?
I doubt too, it's more a matter of QOI. I've actually never
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 03:11:15PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
OK. Though in practice I doubt this is going to catch many real
bugs. Are people still giving main a stdargs style signature?
I doubt too, it's more a matter of QOI. I've actually never seen
main (int, ...). But it seemed wrong to not
On 02/12/14 02:51, Marek Polacek wrote:
I figured it might be a good idea to warn about variadic main decl
(well, not in freestanding environment where it's
implementation-defined).
Regtested/bootstrapped on x86_64-linux, ok for 5.0?
2014-02-12 Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com
PR
I figured it might be a good idea to warn about variadic main decl
(well, not in freestanding environment where it's
implementation-defined).
Regtested/bootstrapped on x86_64-linux, ok for 5.0?
2014-02-12 Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com
PR c/60156
c-family/
* c-common.c
