http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39219
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.4.7 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39219
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.4.6 |4.4.7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39219
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.4.5 |4.4.6
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.4.4 |4.4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39219
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.4.3 |4.4.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39219
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.4.2 |4.4.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39219
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.4.1 |4.4.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39219
--- Comment #10 from alex dot gcc dot gnu dot org at firetree dot net
2009-07-22 10:55 ---
This problem seems to affect all enum attributes that are declared with the
preferred syntax. For example, the following enum is not packed, not is a
warning emitted:
enum
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.4.0 |4.4.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39219
--- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-02-20 14:47 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
Should attribute work on enum constants?
Not sure if this is a question for me but IMO, it should. I would expect
individual enumerators to be more heavily
--- Comment #6 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2009-02-18 16:50 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Should attribute work on enum constants?
Not sure if this is a question for me but IMO, it should. I would expect
individual enumerators to be more heavily referenced than their types
--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-02-18 23:44 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-02/msg00790.html
Jason, can you take a look at this one line fix? Thanks.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
--- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-19 01:58 ---
Subject: Bug 39219
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Feb 19 01:58:15 2009
New Revision: 144284
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=144284
Log:
gcc/cp
2009-02-18 H.J. Lu hongjiu...@intel.com
PR
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-02-17 20:29 ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-02/msg00790.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from sebor at roguewave dot com 2009-02-17 21:00 ---
Thanks for looking into so quickly!
In addition to the missing warnings mentioned in the initial report I would
expect a warning for each of the references to e below (i.e., on lines 3, 9,
and 15), analogously to those
--- Comment #5 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-02-17 21:38 ---
Should attribute work on enum constants?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39219
16 matches
Mail list logo
