On 09/22/16 16:34, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > On 22/09/16 15:27, Alexander Monakov wrote: >> H_F_P_IS_FRAME_POINTER (the ChangeLog is wrong). As I understand, the >> issue is >> that config/arm/arm.h defines that to plain 0, which causes the >> warning (ugh?). >> >> Does the following restore bootstrap? >> >> Thanks. >> Alexander >> >> diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.h b/gcc/config/arm/arm.h >> index 373dc85..1ae82c1 100644 >> --- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.h >> +++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.h >> @@ -887,8 +887,8 @@ extern int arm_arch_crc; >> ? ARM_HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM \ >> : THUMB_HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM) >> >> -#define HARD_FRAME_POINTER_IS_FRAME_POINTER 0 >> -#define HARD_FRAME_POINTER_IS_ARG_POINTER 0 >> +#define HARD_FRAME_POINTER_IS_FRAME_POINTER false >> +#define HARD_FRAME_POINTER_IS_ARG_POINTER false > > Sorry no, the problem is HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM that is defined as: > #define HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM \ > (TARGET_ARM \ > ? ARM_HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM \ > : THUMB_HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM) > > where ARM_HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM is 11 and > THUMB_HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM is 7 > so Bernd's new warning triggers whenever HARD_FRAME_POINTER_REGNUM is > used as a > boolean like it is in sel-sched.c and regrename.c >
Yes and that was obviously a typo. As of today the warning will no longer trigger if the ?: is in a macro definition, but most ot the time when the warning triggered so far, it has pointed to something that needed really our attention like this one here. I thinking that there will soon be more different levels of that warning that may probably not be in -Wall, so we can at least enable finding code like this. Bernd.
