https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103233
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103233
--- Comment #8 from alx.manpages at gmail dot com ---
Hi Andrew,
On 11/16/21 00:52, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103233
>
> --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
> (In reply to Alejandro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103233
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #5)
> If glibc had a bug,
> and I compiled a C program that had perfectly defined behavior,
> would I receive a report for that error?
Most C headers don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103233
--- Comment #6 from Alejandro Colomar ---
I mean, I'm not against that,
in fact I think it's good to know if my program is going to crash,
even if it's not my fault,
but then I wonder if cases such as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103233
--- Comment #5 from Alejandro Colomar ---
Is `-fanalyzer` allowed to report errors from system headers exclusively?
I mean,
ignoring the fact that C++ is unsupported,
there's no report at all that relates that error report to my code;
not even
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103233
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
The analyzer doesn't properly support C++ yet; in particular, it doesn't yet
"understand" exception handling.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103233
--- Comment #3 from alx.manpages at gmail dot com ---
Hi Jonathan,
On 11/14/21 15:57, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103233
>
> Jonathan Wakely changed:
>
> What|Removed
