On 03/05/08 07:07, Diego Novillo wrote:
The overnight tester has found hundreds of new regressions. Please
refrain from checking in anything in the branch until I figure out which
patch broke them and revert it.
cc1 had failed to build because of invalid C90 declarations. Fixed with
this patch.
The branch is open for commits now.
2008-03-05 Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* fold-const.c (tree_binary_nonnegative_warnv_p): Fix
invalid C90 declaration.
(tree_single_nonnegative_warnv_p): Likewise.
* gimplify.c (gimplify_bind_expr): Likewise.
(gimplify_return_expr): Likewise.
Index: fold-const.c
===================================================================
--- fold-const.c (revision 132891)
+++ fold-const.c (working copy)
@@ -14197,10 +14197,11 @@ tree_binary_nonnegative_warnv_p (enum tr
static bool
tree_single_nonnegative_warnv_p (tree t, bool *strict_overflow_p)
{
+ enum tree_code code = TREE_CODE (t);
+
if (TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (t)))
return true;
- enum tree_code code = TREE_CODE (t);
switch (code)
{
case SSA_NAME:
@@ -14238,10 +14239,11 @@ tree_single_nonnegative_warnv_p (tree t,
static bool
tree_invalid_nonnegative_warnv_p (tree t, bool *strict_overflow_p)
{
+ enum tree_code code = TREE_CODE (t);
+
if (TYPE_UNSIGNED (TREE_TYPE (t)))
return true;
- enum tree_code code = TREE_CODE (t);
switch (code)
{
case TARGET_EXPR:
Index: gimplify.c
===================================================================
--- gimplify.c (revision 132891)
+++ gimplify.c (working copy)
@@ -1181,6 +1181,7 @@ gimplify_bind_expr (tree *expr_p, gimple
static enum gimplify_status
gimplify_return_expr (tree stmt, gimple_seq *pre_p)
{
+ gimple ret;
tree ret_expr = TREE_OPERAND (stmt, 0);
tree result_decl, result;
@@ -1249,7 +1250,7 @@ gimplify_return_expr (tree stmt, gimple_
gimplify_and_add (TREE_OPERAND (stmt, 0), pre_p);
- gimple ret = gimple_build_return (result);
+ ret = gimple_build_return (result);
gimple_set_no_warning (ret, TREE_NO_WARNING (stmt));
gimple_seq_add_stmt (pre_p, ret);
