https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68193
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68193
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Uecker :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:54be338589ea93ad4ff53d22adde476a0582537b
commit r14-3004-g54be338589ea93ad4ff53d22adde476a0582537b
Author: Martin Uecker
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68193
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||muecker at gwdg dot de
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68193
Ladislav Michl changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||la...@linux-mips.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68193
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
I think some kind of delayed warning could help (so parse expressions and print
possible warnings to some "printer" and then print warnings from this "printer"
only for the association that matched).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68193
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
Yes, so this would be somehow tied to c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings as in we
warn for
0 ? foo () : 2;
if foo() wasn't declared but not for the div-by-zero here:
0 ? 1 / 0 : 2;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68193
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I agree delaying warnings would help, but you'd need to distinguish
warnings relating to execution of the code that should be disabled in
unevaluated code from warnings that should always
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68193
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68193
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
