From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 60200 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2015 00:43:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 60135 invoked by uid 48); 16 Apr 2015 00:43:18 -0000 From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/62182] New warning wished: operator== and "equality comparison result unused [-Wunused-comparison]"/-Wunsed-value Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 00:43:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg01269.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D62182 --- Comment #4 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez --- (In reply to Arnaud Bienner from comment #3) > Created attachment 35324 [details] > unused-comparison warning You need testcases, and to run the testsuite. See point 4 at: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GettingStarted#Basics:_Contributing_to_GCC_in_10_e= asy_steps > One thing that doesn't work is turning on this warning using > -Wunused-comparison parameter. But surprisingly, turning it off with > -Wno-unused-comparison (when -Wunused or -Wall is used) works. Not sure w= hat > I'm missing here. That is very weird. I don't see anything wrong in your patch about this. Nonetheless, please add the warning to c-family/c.opt not to common.opt sin= ce it is a C/C++ warning. Also watch out for the formatting (too long lines, incorrect indentation, e= tc.) See point 6 in the link above. > The patch would just be a first step: the next step would be to also raise > this warning in the case of a "=3D=3D" operator overloading in C++ (which= seems > to be the case that doesn't raise a warning currently). Not sure yet how = to > do this. It is more than ok to do one patch per step. Try to get the first patch rig= ht and committed, then worry about the next. >>From gcc-bugs-return-483718-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Apr 16 00:55:05 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 60044 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2015 00:55:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 59603 invoked by uid 48); 16 Apr 2015 00:55:00 -0000 From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/65781] gcc-5.1.0-RC-20150412 thinks it is 5.0.1 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 00:55:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg01270.txt.bz2 Content-length: 663 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D65781 Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez --- To be honest, it is pretty confusing even to me. If 5.0.1 denotes RC1, then= why not call it 5.0.1-20150412 ? Then RC2 would be denoted by 5.0.2, and so on= . As a general rule, X.0.N, where N > 0 could always be release candidate number= N. >>From gcc-bugs-return-483719-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Apr 16 01:39:01 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 1838 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2015 01:39:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 1782 invoked by uid 48); 16 Apr 2015 01:38:57 -0000 From: "jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/64921] [4.9/5/6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_allocate_18.f90 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 01:39:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.3 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg01271.txt.bz2 Content-length: 428 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921 Jerry DeLisle changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle --- I still see this failure on trunk. 6.0