On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Mark Wielaard <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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. >
It caused: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69911 -- H.J.
