On 10/13/20 3:46 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 00:02, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
On 9/25/20 11:17 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/22/20 4:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The rebased and retested patches are attached.
On 9/21/20 3:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 00:02, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On 9/25/20 11:17 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 9/22/20 4:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >> The rebased and retested patches are attached.
> >>
> >> On 9/21/20 3:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>> Ping:
> >>>
On 10/11/20 9:44 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/11/20 6:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/9/20 9:13 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/9/20 10:51 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/8/20 1:40 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/8/20 3:18 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/7/20 3:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On
On 10/11/20 6:45 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/9/20 9:13 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/9/20 10:51 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/8/20 1:40 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/8/20 3:18 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/7/20 3:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/7/20 4:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
...
On 10/9/20 9:13 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/9/20 10:51 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/8/20 1:40 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/8/20 3:18 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/7/20 3:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/7/20 4:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
...
For the various member functions, please
On 10/9/20 10:51 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/8/20 1:40 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/8/20 3:18 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/7/20 3:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/7/20 4:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
...
For the various member functions, please include the
comments with the definition
On 10/8/20 1:40 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/8/20 3:18 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/7/20 3:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/7/20 4:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
...
For the various member functions, please include the comments
with the definition as well as the in-class declaration.
Only
On 10/8/20 3:18 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/7/20 3:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/7/20 4:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
...
For the various member functions, please include the comments
with the definition as well as the in-class declaration.
Only one access_ref member function is defined
On 10/7/20 3:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/7/20 4:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
...
For the various member functions, please include the comments
with the definition as well as the in-class declaration.
Only one access_ref member function is defined out-of-line:
offset_bounded(). I've
On 10/7/20 4:11 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/7/20 1:28 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/7/20 11:19 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/7/20 9:07 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/7/20 10:42 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/7/20 8:26 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/28/20 6:01 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On
On 10/7/20 1:28 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/7/20 11:19 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/7/20 9:07 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/7/20 10:42 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/7/20 8:26 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/28/20 6:01 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 9/25/20 11:17 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On
On 10/7/20 11:19 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/7/20 9:07 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/7/20 10:42 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/7/20 8:26 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/28/20 6:01 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 9/25/20 11:17 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/22/20 4:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The
On 10/7/20 9:07 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/7/20 10:42 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/7/20 8:26 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/28/20 6:01 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 9/25/20 11:17 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/22/20 4:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The rebased and retested patches are attached.
On 10/7/20 10:42 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/7/20 8:26 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/28/20 6:01 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 9/25/20 11:17 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/22/20 4:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The rebased and retested patches are attached.
On 9/21/20 3:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/7/20 8:26 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/28/20 6:01 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 9/25/20 11:17 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/22/20 4:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The rebased and retested patches are attached.
On 9/21/20 3:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping:
On 9/28/20 6:01 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 9/25/20 11:17 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/22/20 4:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The rebased and retested patches are attached.
On 9/21/20 3:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/553906.html
(I'm
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/555019.html
On 9/28/20 4:01 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 9/25/20 11:17 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/22/20 4:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The rebased and retested patches are attached.
On 9/21/20 3:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping:
On 9/25/20 11:17 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/22/20 4:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The rebased and retested patches are attached.
On 9/21/20 3:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/553906.html
(I'm working on rebasing the patch on top of
On 9/22/20 4:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The rebased and retested patches are attached.
On 9/21/20 3:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/553906.html
(I'm working on rebasing the patch on top of the latest trunk which
has changed some of
The rebased and retested patches are attached.
On 9/21/20 3:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/553906.html
(I'm working on rebasing the patch on top of the latest trunk which
has changed some of the same code but it'd be helpful to get a
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-September/553906.html
(I'm working on rebasing the patch on top of the latest trunk which
has changed some of the same code but it'd be helpful to get a go-
ahead on substance the changes. I don't expect the rebase to
require any substantive
On 9/4/20 11:14 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 9/3/20 2:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 9/1/20 1:22 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/11/20 12:19 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
-Wplacement-new handles array indices and pointer offsets the same:
by adjusting them by the size of the element.
On 9/3/20 2:44 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 9/1/20 1:22 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/11/20 12:19 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
-Wplacement-new handles array indices and pointer offsets the same:
by adjusting them by the size of the element. That's correct for
the latter but wrong for
On 9/1/20 1:22 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 8/11/20 12:19 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
-Wplacement-new handles array indices and pointer offsets the same:
by adjusting them by the size of the element. That's correct for
the latter but wrong for the former, causing false positives
On 8/11/20 12:19 PM, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
-Wplacement-new handles array indices and pointer offsets the same:
by adjusting them by the size of the element. That's correct for
the latter but wrong for the former, causing false positives when
the element size is greater than one.
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-August/551783.html
On 8/19/20 9:00 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-August/551783.html
On 8/11/20 10:19 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
-Wplacement-new handles array indices and pointer offsets the same:
Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-August/551783.html
On 8/11/20 10:19 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
-Wplacement-new handles array indices and pointer offsets the same:
by adjusting them by the size of the element. That's correct for
the latter but wrong for the former, causing
-Wplacement-new handles array indices and pointer offsets the same:
by adjusting them by the size of the element. That's correct for
the latter but wrong for the former, causing false positives when
the element size is greater than one.
In addition, the warning doesn't even attempt to handle
28 matches
Mail list logo
