https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Sat, 11 May 2019, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
>
> --- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
> I had started by doing that but gave up wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
--- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor ---
I had started by doing that but gave up when I noticed that there are lots of
them, some like this:
if (TREE_CODE (expr) == REALPART_EXPR
|| TREE_CODE (expr) == IMAGPART_EXPR
|| TREE_CODE (expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On May 10, 2019 10:34:03 PM GMT+02:00, "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
>
>Martin Sebor changed:
>
> What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
--- Comment #10 from Roland Illig ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> IMHO the error calls in our IL checkers are abusive, they could have been
> simple dumps to stderr for example. It was just "convenient" to use
> a disagnostic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
--- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
The trouble is that there is no way to tell whether
error ("BIT_FIELD_REF of non-mode-precision operand");
is a user-facing error or an internal error not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
--- Comment #7 from Roland Illig ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> IMNSHO the IL checker "errors" should continue to use GCC terms since they
> check the GIMPLE intermediate language. They also shouldn't necessarily be
> transla
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
IMNSHO the IL checker "errors" should continue to use GCC terms since they
check the GIMPLE intermediate language. They also shouldn't necessarily be
translated (though they may end up user-facing if they t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor ---
*** Bug 79878 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRMED
12 matches
Mail list logo
