On 06/27/2010 09:10 PM, dev-ran...@mail.ru wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 08:48:25PM +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
...
It is allowed. Section 7.1.1, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the C++ standard:
...
Not in C.
ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (aka C99), section 6.7.1, note 101:
The implementation may treat any
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 08:48:25PM +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> ...
> It is allowed. Section 7.1.1, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the C++ standard:
> ...
Not in C.
ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (aka C99), section 6.7.1, note 101:
> The implementation may treat any register declaration simply as an auto
> declar
On 06/27/2010 08:14 PM, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 05:46:28PM +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On 06/27/2010 03:23 PM, Harald van Dijk wrote:
The compiler is not totally free to ignore the register keyword.
Both the C and the C++ standards require that the compiler complain
whe
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 05:46:28PM +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 06/27/2010 03:23 PM, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > The compiler is not totally free to ignore the register keyword.
> > Both the C and the C++ standards require that the compiler complain
> > when taking the address of a register v
On 06/27/2010 03:23 PM, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 02:56:33PM +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On 06/27/2010 01:47 PM, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Nikos Chantziaras schrieb:
Did it actually occur to anyone that warnings are not errors?
You can have them for correct code. A wa
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:25:39 +0200
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> hmm, is there a (portable) way to prevent a specific warning
> in an specific place ? (some kind of #pragma ?)
No.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
* Harald van D??k schrieb:
> The compiler is not totally free to ignore the register keyword. Both
> the C and the C++ standards require that the compiler complain when
> taking the address of a register variable. Other compilers will issue a
> hard error for it. Fixing the code to not declare th
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 02:56:33PM +0300, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 06/27/2010 01:47 PM, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > * Nikos Chantziaras schrieb:
> >
> >> Did it actually occur to anyone that warnings are not errors? You can
> >> have them for correct code. A warning means you might want to lo
On 06/27/2010 01:47 PM, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Nikos Chantziaras schrieb:
Did it actually occur to anyone that warnings are not errors? You can
have them for correct code. A warning means you might want to look at
the code to check whether there's some real error there. It doesn't
mean the
* Nikos Chantziaras schrieb:
> Did it actually occur to anyone that warnings are not errors? You can
> have them for correct code. A warning means you might want to look at
> the code to check whether there's some real error there. It doesn't
> mean the code is broken.
In my personal exper
On 06/26/2010 11:12 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:57:33 +0200
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Uhm. No. Certain compilers will give you warnings for f(g(a), g(b))
if you -Wall.
Warn on what exactly ?
That f's arguments are evaluated in an unspecified order.
Which compilers do tha
On 06/26/2010 10:39 PM, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Petteri Räty schrieb:
There should be useful stuff here:
http://video.fosdem.org/2010/devrooms/distributions/How_to_be_a_good_upstream.ogv
[...[
#2 One point i don't agree is the "dont add -Werror" rule. actually,
i'm thinking of making -Wall a
12 matches
Mail list logo