This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Fwd: Re: compiler interpretation of *mptr++ = mptr]
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Ajoy K Thamattoor <athamatt at cisco dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, erchrist at cisco dot com
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:41:16 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: compiler interpretation of *mptr++ = mptr]
- References: <424C799A.90501@cisco.com>
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Ajoy K Thamattoor wrote:
>
> A colleague of mine pointed out gcc gave warnings on the following
> constructs. I understand a strictly conforming implementation is allowed
> to warn on anything, but some of these are actually valid constructs.
> Wanted clarification on why gcc wants to provide sequence-point warnings
> on these. Please cc me on the response, since I am not subscribed to the
> list...
I don't think you understand what dg-bogus means. You are quoting from
gcc.dg/sequence-pt-1.c and dg-bogus is testing that GCC *doesn't* warn for
those constructs. And, indeed, the test passes: GCC does not warn for
these constructs.
If you have a genuine bug in -Wsequence-point, report it to GCC Bugzilla
with a complete testcase to reproduce the bug.
--
Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)