Stephan Pleines writes:
> So what is the verdict in this patch please?
Adding the pair of parentheses makes the code slightly more readable to
me. But it would still be nice if you could say what the warninsg
message to be suppressed is, and which compiler and version produces that
warning.
Reg
So what is the verdict in this patch please?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 5:06 AM Hans Åberg wrote:
>
> > On 11 Feb 2021, at 11:45, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
> >
> > I think there might be better places to discuss compiler warnings than
> > the gmp-bugs list.
> >
> > I think most of us agree that com
I think there might be better places to discuss compiler warnings than
the gmp-bugs list.
I think most of us agree that compiler warnings for valid C code are
sometimes useful. For example, valid warnings about unitialised
variables seem pretty uncontroversial.
But please continue the discussion
> On 10 Feb 2021, at 23:55, Stephan Pleines wrote:
>
> Can you please elaborate why it is a compiler bug?
It is a legal C feature, so there should not be issued a warning.
___
gmp-bugs mailing list
gmp-bugs@gmplib.org
https://gmplib.org/mailman/list
Can you please elaborate why it is a compiler bug?
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 2:00 PM Hans Åberg wrote:
> You do not say which compiler it is, but it looks like a clang bug.
>
>
> > On 10 Feb 2021, at 17:26, Stephan Pleines
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is a tiny patch to suppress a warning ab
You do not say which compiler it is, but it looks like a clang bug.
> On 10 Feb 2021, at 17:26, Stephan Pleines wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is a tiny patch to suppress a warning about operator precedence.
>
> Thank you,
> Stephan
>
> diff -r 925753a1f950 mpz/pprime_p.c
> --- a/mpz/pprime_p.c
