http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-25
09:54:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Sorry for the confusion here Jon. I meant to ask if the specs define what the
behaviour should be if __s *does not* contain __n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
Mohsin mohsinrzaidi at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-24
09:29:28 UTC ---
Also, GCC 4.1.2 is ancient and not supported here, you should either report
bugs to the vendor of your version (Red Hat) or refer to a supported
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-24
09:37:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I don't see any errors being thrown. I am not trying to nit-pick but I've
raised this issue because I was affected by it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
--- Comment #8 from Mohsin mohsinrzaidi at gmail dot com 2011-03-24 09:50:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Also, GCC 4.1.2 is ancient and not supported here, you should either report
bugs to the vendor of your version (Red Hat) or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
--- Comment #9 from Mohsin mohsinrzaidi at gmail dot com 2011-03-24 09:52:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #4)
I don't see any errors being thrown. I am not trying to nit-pick but I've
raised this issue
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
--- Comment #10 from Mohsin mohsinrzaidi at gmail dot com 2011-03-24 10:21:56
UTC ---
Two questions here:
1. Is the behaviour undefined for __n number of elements in __s?
2. For cases undefined in the specs, do we take steps to ensure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
--- Comment #11 from Mohsin mohsinrzaidi at gmail dot com 2011-03-24 10:24:15
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Two questions here:
1. Is the behaviour undefined for __n number of elements in __s?
Oops! I meant for __n number
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-24
11:27:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
(In reply to comment #10)
Two questions here:
1. Is the behaviour undefined for __n number of elements in __s?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
--- Comment #13 from Mohsin mohsinrzaidi at gmail dot com 2011-03-25 05:48:21
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #11)
(In reply to comment #10)
Two questions here:
1. Is the behaviour undefined for __n number of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
Mohsin mohsinrzaidi at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48257
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
14 matches
Mail list logo