public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug tree-optimization/107386] New: gcc/tree-core.h:588:3: error: element 'OMP_MEMORY_ORDER_UNSPECIFIED' has been implicitly assigned 0 which another element has been assigned [-Werror,-Wduplicate-enum]
@ 2022-10-24 19:17 marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-24 19:22 ` [Bug tree-optimization/107386] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-10-24 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107386
Bug ID: 107386
Summary: gcc/tree-core.h:588:3: error: element
'OMP_MEMORY_ORDER_UNSPECIFIED' has been implicitly
assigned 0 which another element has been assigned
[-Werror,-Wduplicate-enum]
Product: gcc
Version: 13.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Found by clang (w/ -Wduplicate-enum):
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/tree-core.h:588:3: error: element
'OMP_MEMORY_ORDER_UNSPECIFIED' has been implicitly assigned 0 which another
element has been assigned [-Werror,-Wduplicate-enum]
OMP_MEMORY_ORDER_UNSPECIFIED,
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/tree-core.h:595:3: note: element
'OMP_FAIL_MEMORY_ORDER_UNSPECIFIED' also has value 0
OMP_FAIL_MEMORY_ORDER_UNSPECIFIED = OMP_MEMORY_ORDER_UNSPECIFIED * 8,
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/107386] gcc/tree-core.h:588:3: error: element 'OMP_MEMORY_ORDER_UNSPECIFIED' has been implicitly assigned 0 which another element has been assigned [-Werror,-Wduplicate-enum]
2022-10-24 19:17 [Bug tree-optimization/107386] New: gcc/tree-core.h:588:3: error: element 'OMP_MEMORY_ORDER_UNSPECIFIED' has been implicitly assigned 0 which another element has been assigned [-Werror,-Wduplicate-enum] marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-10-24 19:22 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-24 19:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-24 19:45 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-10-24 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107386
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The value is correct here though. Both should be 0.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/107386] gcc/tree-core.h:588:3: error: element 'OMP_MEMORY_ORDER_UNSPECIFIED' has been implicitly assigned 0 which another element has been assigned [-Werror,-Wduplicate-enum]
2022-10-24 19:17 [Bug tree-optimization/107386] New: gcc/tree-core.h:588:3: error: element 'OMP_MEMORY_ORDER_UNSPECIFIED' has been implicitly assigned 0 which another element has been assigned [-Werror,-Wduplicate-enum] marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-24 19:22 ` [Bug tree-optimization/107386] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-10-24 19:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-24 19:45 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-10-24 19:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107386
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Seems the warning is just badly designed. There is nothing wrong in
tree-core.h.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/107386] gcc/tree-core.h:588:3: error: element 'OMP_MEMORY_ORDER_UNSPECIFIED' has been implicitly assigned 0 which another element has been assigned [-Werror,-Wduplicate-enum]
2022-10-24 19:17 [Bug tree-optimization/107386] New: gcc/tree-core.h:588:3: error: element 'OMP_MEMORY_ORDER_UNSPECIFIED' has been implicitly assigned 0 which another element has been assigned [-Werror,-Wduplicate-enum] marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-24 19:22 ` [Bug tree-optimization/107386] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-24 19:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-10-24 19:45 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-10-24 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107386
Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Well, even though this warning is not correct, it can happen that one wants to
define "extended" enum values by multiplying the existing (implicit) values and
would be surprised that 0 * some_value == 0.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-10-24 19:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-10-24 19:17 [Bug tree-optimization/107386] New: gcc/tree-core.h:588:3: error: element 'OMP_MEMORY_ORDER_UNSPECIFIED' has been implicitly assigned 0 which another element has been assigned [-Werror,-Wduplicate-enum] marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-24 19:22 ` [Bug tree-optimization/107386] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-24 19:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-24 19:45 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.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).