On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:57:56AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 02/20/2016 06:42 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Note that given the discussion in the BZ, I'm going to consider this a > regression and thus eligible for the trunk.
Thanks. Unfortunately new warnings always seem to make some people unhappy (even when others are happy and see them as useful). Hopefully this compromise makes it so that nobody sees this warning as regression. > >diff --git a/gcc/cgraphunit.c b/gcc/cgraphunit.c > >index 0a745f0..27a073a 100644 > >--- a/gcc/cgraphunit.c > >+++ b/gcc/cgraphunit.c > >@@ -971,7 +974,7 @@ check_global_declaration (symtab_node *snode) > > (TREE_CODE (decl) == FUNCTION_DECL) > > ? OPT_Wunused_function > > : (TREE_READONLY (decl) > >- ? OPT_Wunused_const_variable > >+ ? OPT_Wunused_const_variable_ > Typo here? > > If that's not a typo, then just say so and this is approved. As Jakub already explained that was deliberate. It is how a warning option that can take a level is represented. Pushed. Thanks, Mark
