public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2005-10-17 0:41 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-17 0:45 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
` (21 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-17 0:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 00:41 -------
Why is this marked as a C++ front-end bug? Isn't this a middle-end problem?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-10-17 0:41 ` [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-17 0:45 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
2005-10-17 4:39 ` ian at airs dot com
` (20 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu @ 2005-10-17 0:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 00:45 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with
switches
>
>
>
> ------- Comment #9 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 00:41 -------
> Why is this marked as a C++ front-end bug? Isn't this a middle-end problem?
Because there is a "work around" in the C front-end, that could be copied
into the C++ front-end.
-- Pinski
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-10-17 0:41 ` [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-17 0:45 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
@ 2005-10-17 4:39 ` ian at airs dot com
2005-10-17 4:46 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
` (19 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: ian at airs dot com @ 2005-10-17 4:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from ian at airs dot com 2005-10-17 04:39 -------
For the record, this is the work-around in the C frontend:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01452.html
A corresponding patch in the C++ frontend would be more complicated, in order
to continue to emit the error "break statement not within loop or switch" when
required.
This class of bugs is a pain to work with at present. The warning just follows
the CFG, which makes sense. But code like
case 1:
return;
break;
builds a CFG which has a return followed by a goto. remove_useless_stmts is
currently not clever enough to remove code after a return, so the goto gets
incorporated into the CFG. Note that we don't get the warning when optimizing;
we only get it with -O0. And indeed when not optimizing the assembly code has
the code path which returns an uninitialized value, although of course it never
gets executed in practice.
Fixing this in the middle-end will require a version of remove_useless_stmts
which is clever enough to efficiently discard statements which follow a return
statement. Andrew was working on that at one point; I don't recall what the
status is.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-10-17 4:39 ` ian at airs dot com
@ 2005-10-17 4:46 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
2005-10-27 20:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu @ 2005-10-17 4:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-17 04:46 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with
switches
On Oct 17, 2005, at 12:39 AM, ian at airs dot com wrote:
> Fixing this in the middle-end will require a version of
> remove_useless_stmts
> which is clever enough to efficiently discard statements which follow
> a return
> statement. Andrew was working on that at one point; I don't recall
> what the
> status is.
The status is that it will only be approved for 4.2 (this was decided
by RTH). The problem is also comes into play with extra unreachable
labels which was not going to be fixed by my patch and is what
really causes this bug, rather than the stuff after a goto/return.
We lower the eh before removing the unreachable label which causes
us to think that there is a way to get fallthrough the switch. This
means
that we need a switch table for cleanup of the variable (the call to
the dtor).
-- Pinski
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2005-10-17 4:46 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
@ 2005-10-27 20:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-31 2:55 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-27 20:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |minor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2005-10-27 20:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-31 2:55 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-12-13 15:02 ` [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1/4.2 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-31 2:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-31 02:55 -------
Given the kind of solutions we're looking at, I can't imagine this being fixed
for 4.0, and probably not even for 4.1, so I've set this to P4.
However, it seems sad to me that we can't find some efficient way to skip
statements after a return at -O0. If we really can't do that, then we ought to
think hard about whether or not we should be emitting this warning at -O0,
given that we want to do this warning via the optimization framework.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P2 |P4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2005-10-31 2:55 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-12-13 15:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-11 3:22 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-12-13 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-13 15:02 -------
*** Bug 25390 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pmladek at suse dot cz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2005-12-13 15:02 ` [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1/4.2 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-03-11 3:22 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-07-03 15:27 ` pluto at agmk dot net
` (14 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-03-11 3:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.0.3 |4.0.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2006-03-11 3:22 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-07-03 15:27 ` pluto at agmk dot net
2006-07-03 15:30 ` pluto at agmk dot net
` (13 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pluto at agmk dot net @ 2006-07-03 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-07-03 15:27 -------
one more valid code rejected by 4.1/4.2:
typedef enum { foo, bar } e;
int zoo( e __e )
{
switch ( __e )
{
case foo: return -1;
case bar: return +1;
}
}
$ x86_64-gnu-linux-g++ bug.cpp -c -Wall -O2
bug.cpp: In function 'int zoo(e)':
bug.cpp:9: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2006-07-03 15:27 ` pluto at agmk dot net
@ 2006-07-03 15:30 ` pluto at agmk dot net
2006-07-03 15:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pluto at agmk dot net @ 2006-07-03 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-07-03 15:30 -------
(In reply to comment #15)
> one more valid code rejected by 4.1/4.2:
>
> typedef enum { foo, bar } e;
> int zoo( e __e )
> {
> switch ( __e )
> {
> case foo: return -1;
> case bar: return +1;
> }
> }
>
> $ x86_64-gnu-linux-g++ bug.cpp -c -Wall -O2
> bug.cpp: In function 'int zoo(e)':
> bug.cpp:9: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
>
ohh, 3.3.6 also fails.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2006-07-03 15:30 ` pluto at agmk dot net
@ 2006-07-03 15:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-07-03 16:55 ` pluto at agmk dot net
` (11 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-07-03 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-03 15:34 -------
(In reply to comment #16)
> ohh, 3.3.6 also fails.
That is a different issue and really should be filed in a different bug. The
issue there is C++'s enums are only defined for those two values.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2006-07-03 15:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-07-03 16:55 ` pluto at agmk dot net
2007-01-18 3:41 ` [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 " gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pluto at agmk dot net @ 2006-07-03 16:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #18 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-07-03 16:55 -------
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > ohh, 3.3.6 also fails.
>
> That is a different issue and really should be filed in a different bug. The
> issue there is C++'s enums are only defined for those two values.
reported in PR28236
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2006-07-03 16:55 ` pluto at agmk dot net
@ 2007-01-18 3:41 ` gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-21 21:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-01-18 3:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #19 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-18 03:41 -------
won't fix for GCC-4.0.x
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.0.4 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2007-01-18 3:41 ` [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 " gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-01-21 21:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-14 9:23 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-01-21 21:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2007-01-21 21:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-02-14 9:23 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-05-02 6:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-02-14 9:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-14 9:23 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-05-02 6:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-07-04 16:52 ` [Bug c++/20681] [4.2/4.3/4.4 " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-05-02 6:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #20 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-02 07:20 -------
*** Bug 31783 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |wad at infinet dot ru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2007-05-02 6:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-07-04 16:52 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-11-19 15:15 ` karol at mikronika dot com dot pl
` (5 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-07-04 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #21 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-04 16:51 -------
Closing 4.1 branch.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[4.1/4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression]|[4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression]
|wrong "control reaches" |wrong "control reaches"
|warning with switches |warning with switches
Target Milestone|4.1.3 |4.2.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2008-07-04 16:52 ` [Bug c++/20681] [4.2/4.3/4.4 " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-11-19 15:15 ` karol at mikronika dot com dot pl
2008-12-22 2:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: karol at mikronika dot com dot pl @ 2008-11-19 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #22 from karol at mikronika dot com dot pl 2008-11-19 15:13 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> Reduced testcase:
> struct a{~a();a();};
> int GetMetaCombination (int a2)
> {
> a bi;
> switch (a2)
> {
> case 1:
> return 18;
> break;//removing this works around the warning
> default:
> return 0;
> }
> }
This also fails in gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.4
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.2/4.3/4.4 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2008-11-19 15:15 ` karol at mikronika dot com dot pl
@ 2008-12-22 2:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-03-31 18:43 ` [Bug c++/20681] [4.3/4.4/4.5 " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-12-22 2:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #23 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-22 02:36 -------
*** Bug 38552 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |piotr dot wyderski at gmail
| |dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2008-12-22 2:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-03-31 18:43 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-04 12:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-03-31 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #24 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-31 18:43 -------
Closing 4.2 branch.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[4.2/4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression]|[4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression]
|wrong "control reaches" |wrong "control reaches"
|warning with switches |warning with switches
Target Milestone|4.2.5 |4.3.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2009-03-31 18:43 ` [Bug c++/20681] [4.3/4.4/4.5 " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-08-04 12:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-22 18:13 ` [Bug c++/20681] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-03 4:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-08-04 12:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #25 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-04 12:26 -------
GCC 4.3.4 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.3.4 |4.3.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2009-08-04 12:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-22 18:13 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-03 4:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-22 18:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #26 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:10 -------
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.3.5 |4.3.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/20681] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-22 18:13 ` [Bug c++/20681] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-09-03 4:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
22 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-09-03 4:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #27 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-03 04:53 -------
*** Bug 45497 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20681
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-09-03 4:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <bug-20681-9121@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-10-17 0:41 ` [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1 Regression] wrong "control reaches" warning with switches mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-17 0:45 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
2005-10-17 4:39 ` ian at airs dot com
2005-10-17 4:46 ` pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
2005-10-27 20:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-31 2:55 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-12-13 15:02 ` [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1/4.2 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-11 3:22 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-07-03 15:27 ` pluto at agmk dot net
2006-07-03 15:30 ` pluto at agmk dot net
2006-07-03 15:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-07-03 16:55 ` pluto at agmk dot net
2007-01-18 3:41 ` [Bug c++/20681] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 " gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-21 21:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-14 9:23 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-05-02 6:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-07-04 16:52 ` [Bug c++/20681] [4.2/4.3/4.4 " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-11-19 15:15 ` karol at mikronika dot com dot pl
2008-12-22 2:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-03-31 18:43 ` [Bug c++/20681] [4.3/4.4/4.5 " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-04 12:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-22 18:13 ` [Bug c++/20681] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-03 4:53 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).