Bug#615525: gcc: -Wtype-limits should not trigger for types of implementation-defined signedness

2011-02-26 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Package: gcc-4.6 Version: 4.6-20110216-1 Severity: wishlist Tags: upstream Hi, $ gcc -c -std=gnu99 -Wtype-limits -x c - <<-\EOF enum test_enum { FOO, BAR }; int valid(enum test_enum arg) { return arg >= FOO && arg <= BAR; } EOF : In function ‘valid’: :8:9: warning: compar

Bug#615157: gcc-4.6: -Wunused-but-set-variable -Werror does not imply -Werror=unused-but-set-variable

2011-02-26 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Matthias Klose wrote: > yes, explicitly disabled in the package, for a limited time. If you > keep this warning enabled, it will result in too many build > failures. Somebody needs to scan the successful build logs of a > test rebuild for these warnings, file bug reports, user-tag them > with de

Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?

2011-02-26 Thread Steve M. Robbins
Dear Matthias, On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 06:10:54PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 26.02.2011 18:08, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > >Instead of asking cryptic questions, could you please spell out your > >concerns in detail so that we could address them. > > what is cryptic about the question? Than

Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?

2011-02-26 Thread Matthias Klose
On 26.02.2011 18:08, Steve M. Robbins wrote: On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 05:49:49PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: On 26.02.2011 04:42, Steve M. Robbins wrote: On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:57:28PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: On 25.02.2011 08:46, Steve M. Robbins wrote: Clearly one should be mindfu

Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?

2011-02-26 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 05:49:49PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 26.02.2011 04:42, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > >On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:57:28PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > >>On 25.02.2011 08:46, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > >>>Clearly one should be mindful of the effect on GCC -- that's wh

Bug#615157: gcc-4.6: -Wunused-but-set-variable -Werror does not imply -Werror=unused-but-set-variable

2011-02-26 Thread Matthias Klose
On 26.02.2011 07:43, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Package: gcc-4.6 Version: 4.6-20110216-1 I would have expected all three to error out. Known problem? yes, explicitly disabled in the package, for a limited time. If you keep this warning enabled, it will result in too many build failures. Some

gcc-snapshot_20110226-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

2011-02-26 Thread Debian FTP Masters
Accepted: gcc-snapshot_20110226-1.diff.gz to main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20110226-1.diff.gz gcc-snapshot_20110226-1.dsc to main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20110226-1.dsc gcc-snapshot_20110226-1_amd64.deb to main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20110226-1_amd64.deb gcc-snapshot_20110226.o

Processing of gcc-snapshot_20110226-1_amd64.changes

2011-02-26 Thread Debian FTP Masters
gcc-snapshot_20110226-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: gcc-snapshot_20110226-1.dsc gcc-snapshot_20110226.orig.tar.gz gcc-snapshot_20110226-1.diff.gz gcc-snapshot_20110226-1_amd64.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franc