--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 10:59 ---
Thanks for the report. I think all these have been fixed already in GCC 4.6 and
regressions would be detected by the new -Wunused-but-set flags.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-08 17:26 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I also counted about 300 similar cases where Intel
produced warning #593. I think there is quite a bit
of pointless computation going on.
Thanks. I think optimisers should remove all of
--- Comment #4 from aldot at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-04 09:15 ---
I'd say that this is blocked by PR18624 (resp. PR30438 for fortran).
dcb, you seem to report these as separate PRs. Previous of this category
include:
PR25547
PR25567
PR26245
PR32948
--
aldot at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #5 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2008-01-04 18:33 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I'd say that this is blocked by PR18624 (resp. PR30438 for fortran).
dcb, you seem to report these as separate PRs. Previous of this category
include:
PR25547
PR25567
PR26245
PR32948
I
--- Comment #2 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2008-01-03 21:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=14871)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14871action=view)
patch for gcc 4.3 20071228
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34592
--- Comment #3 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2008-01-03 21:52 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I always hated this warning from the EDG front-end, it sometimes produces a
false warning.
Feel free to send a bug report to EDG.
Like I said, I checked each one and I agree with Intel C
