This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c/11931] New: unjustified warning for C89 code using HUGE_VAL
- From: "debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 15 Aug 2003 17:25:19 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c/11931] New: unjustified warning for C89 code using HUGE_VAL
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11931
Summary: unjustified warning for C89 code using HUGE_VAL
Product: gcc
Version: 3.3.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
[forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/201658]
Consider the following .c file:
#include <math.h>
double x = HUGE_VAL;
gcc -ansi -pedantic -Wall gives the warning "use of C99 hexadecimal
floating constant". There is nothing remotely suspicious about the
code that would deserve a warning; it is entirely C89 conformant.
Presumably math.h (or something included by it) needs a tweak in its #if
directives.
There might be other symbolic constants with the same problem; I haven't
searched for them.
Matt Zimmerman writes:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 02:21:02AM +0000, Adam M. Costello wrote:
>
> > There is nothing remotely suspicious about the code that would deserve a
> > warning; it is entirely C89 conformant. Presumably math.h (or something
> > included by it) needs a tweak in its #if directives.
> >
> > There might be other symbolic constants with the same problem; I haven't
> > searched for them.
>
> My copy of bits/huge_val.h does this:
>
> #if __GNUC_PREREQ(2,96)
> # define HUGE_VAL (__extension__ 0x1.0p2047)
> #else
> [...]
>
> That code is not c89, but legal in gcc, and the warning would be legitimate,
> except that I think __extension__ should be suppressing it.
Adam M. Costello writes:
> Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> wrote:
> > I think __extension__ should be suppressing [the warning].
>
> Maybe that's the bug; __extension__ is not having its intended effect.