On Tue, 6 May 2014, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 11:37:58PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > As a matter of QoI we should also diagnose use of _Atomic in the return
> > type or argument types of main (something I deferred doing in the initial
> > _Atomic support).
>
> Ok, I o
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 11:37:58PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> As a matter of QoI we should also diagnose use of _Atomic in the return
> type or argument types of main (something I deferred doing in the initial
> _Atomic support).
Ok, I opened PR61077 and I'm taking it. But I wonder if I sh
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 03:11:15PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > OK. Though in practice I doubt this is going to catch many real
> > bugs. Are people still giving main a stdargs style signature?
>
> I doubt too, it's more a matter of QOI. I've actually n
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 03:11:15PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> OK. Though in practice I doubt this is going to catch many real
> bugs. Are people still giving main a stdargs style signature?
I doubt too, it's more a matter of QOI. I've actually never seen
main (int, ...). But it seemed wrong to no
On 02/12/14 02:51, Marek Polacek wrote:
I figured it might be a good idea to warn about variadic main decl
(well, not in freestanding environment where it's
implementation-defined).
Regtested/bootstrapped on x86_64-linux, ok for 5.0?
2014-02-12 Marek Polacek
PR c/60156
c-family/
I figured it might be a good idea to warn about variadic main decl
(well, not in freestanding environment where it's
implementation-defined).
Regtested/bootstrapped on x86_64-linux, ok for 5.0?
2014-02-12 Marek Polacek
PR c/60156
c-family/
* c-common.c (check_main_parameter_ty