Someone opened a bug about this: http://gcc.gnu.org/PR53289
Pinging: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg01836.html On 29 April 2012 12:28, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote: > A new version using unsigned int for the flag type. It also adds > another use in the C FE. > > I am not asking for approval, only whether this > approach/implementation is the way to go. > > Cheers, > > Manuel. > > On 23 April 2012 20:09, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote: >> So, apart from the type of the flag, are there any other comments on >> the patch? Is the approach acceptable? >> >> On 21 April 2012 17:51, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 04:26:32PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: >>>>> On 21 April 2012 16:22, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > Do no use 'char' as the type of a flag. Prefer 'unsigned int'. >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, good catch! Should I worry about memory here and use something >>>>> shorter? >>>> >>>> If it is a bool flag, you certainly should use bool type, which is shorter. >>> >>> It is a bit flag -- see the patch in his original message and 'enum >>> diagnostic_info_flags'.
