: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39646
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39647
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38243
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38246
--- Comment #3 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-18 22:18 ---
The standard talks about the groups controlled by conditionals being skipped.
There is no conditional controlling the #elif - it is at the top level - so I
see nothing permitting its non-evaluation.
--
http
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36320
--- Comment #1 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-15 02:54 ---
Chris - unless I'm missing something I disagree. The
, ## __VA_ARGS__
token sequence is being eaten in its entirety by the empty argument. Then
between format and the ')' on the #define line, which
--- Comment #2 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-15 02:56 ---
Never mind, I see your point. The comma isn't being eaten, right.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36088
Version: 4.1.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35908
Version: 4.1.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35312
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35313
--- Comment #4 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-23 14:03 ---
To be honest this isn't even a disputed case from what I can see. I doubt you
can find a serious C implementation (i.e. tcc etc. doesn't count) that will do
what you expect.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #6 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-18 15:24 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I believe more than 160 bits are required to get even single-precision numbers
right with DECIMAL_DIG digits precision and an exponent. I'm going to try and
prove this by finding
--- Comment #5 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-11 03:45 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
We probably don't even get it right for all cases with DECIMAL_DIG digits for
all long double formats (required by Annex F).
(In reply to comment #2)
My reading of F.5#2 is that conversions
) };
--
Summary: offsetof buglet
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-10 00:00 ---
Agreed it's minor; I think I flagged the PR that way.
I'm not sure but I suspect it indicates that the pointer decay is not
happening. If so and you were using GCC to do source code analysis, you would
have
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31870
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31871
--- Comment #2 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 05:01 ---
The space is required by the standard. Is this a regression? I believe GCC
used to get this right but I could be wrong.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31869
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29467
--- Comment #1 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 12:25 ---
Not a bug - just 2 elements are initialized, the NUL is dropped.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29237
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29125
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29126
--- Comment #1 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 14:02 ---
Fixed in current SVN.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #1 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 14:02 ---
Fixed in current SVN.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29129
--- Comment #5 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-18 15:13 ---
Confirmed
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2006-03-05
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29116
--- Comment #3 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-28 23:47 ---
Tokenization is correct on reprocessing since ?= is not a token.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-28 23:48 ---
Tokenization is correct since preprocessed output has been through stages 1-3
and starts at stage 4. If you're passing -trigraphs then your command line is
incorrect.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #8 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-29 05:02 ---
This is not a bug. If you are preprocessing preprocessed output, you must use
-fpreprocessed as documented. Otherwise many other things will go wrong, not
just this. The bug is on your command line.
--
neil
--- Comment #1 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-11 14:28 ---
There is no reason the results should not change.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-21 08:02 ---
Discussing with pinskia, I believe qualifying the array type is intended to be
viewed as qualifying the element type, not the array, so the example is
invalid.
--
neil at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25897
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24293
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http
--- Additional Comments From neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-26 12:13
---
I meant to add -Wall to the warning list.
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Redundant
violation of constraint 6.516p2
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22249
array declaration.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc
--- Additional Comments From neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-26 15:11
---
(In reply to comment #0)
With -fsyntax-only GCC erroneously rejects the following array 'x' as having
non-constant size. Its size should evaluate to 1.
int
bar (int v)
{
int (*p)[v];
int (*q)[2
--- Additional Comments From neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-24 14:56
---
Documented behaviour.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-24 22:24
---
(In reply to comment #6)
Yup, it's documented. However, it's still silently accepted even with
-pedantic, and the language doesn't
permit that.
My copy of the standard only requires a constant expression
Version: 3.3.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21794
: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21720
dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21438
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21296
--- Additional Comments From neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-13 13:29
---
Not a bug - you misunderstand basename.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20077
: gcc
Version: 3.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: preprocessor
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: neil at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-16 22:38
---
Not a bug - the standard requires this.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From neil at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-06 02:26
---
Eric - can you try your testcase on GCC sources as of around the beginning of
August 2003?
This is when I completely rewrote the whole file lookup mechanism, and contrary
to Zack's claims it did work 100
58 matches
Mail list logo
