--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-22 09:48 ---
Fixed in GCC 4.4
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-22 09:46 ---
Subject: Bug 28079
Author: manu
Date: Tue Jul 22 09:45:58 2008
New Revision: 138049
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=138049
Log:
2008-07-22 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR 28
--- Comment #5 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-13 19:52 ---
I don't see why this should be marked "wait".
Changing back to "new".
--
tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #4 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-25 21:10 ---
Sorry for the delay on this.
I never remember our rules about when to emit pedantic warnings
and the like. I think libcpp should follow the overall gcc approach
here, whatever that is.
I agree that warning about tr
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-10 16:12 ---
Also, I noticed that there is an implicit conversion from ulong to uint when
calling _cpp_do_file_change in do_linemarker. That is the point where the
truncation takes place.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
--- Comment #2 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-10 15:52 ---
Tom, as the libcpp maintainer, could you give your opinion about this? I
personally think a warning could be useful, it may point out some bug in an
auto-generated file. Moreover, I think that the standard also require
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-21 05:07 ---
[kudzu:~] pinskia% gcc t.c -pedantic-errors -std=c99
t.c:1:7: error: line number out of range
t.c:-1358925197: error: ISO C forbids an empty source file
With -pedantic we just get a warning.
I don't know if we shou
