On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "Kaveh Ghazi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Right, here's the original link where I mention it:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-06/msg01658.html
> >
> > This involves a cast from one type to another through a void*. I haven't
> > been abl
On 7/10/08, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yeah, it's on my list.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-07/msg00772.html
Thanks!
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> From: "NightStrike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > On 7/8/08, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
> >> > -W options were appl
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Ben Elliston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In this case, I argue that this code is always compiled with a C
>> compiler, and should never be compiled by a C++ compiler. Therefore,
>> I believe it is wrong for this code to be compiled with the
>> -Wc++-compat warning
> In this case, I argue that this code is always compiled with a C
> compiler, and should never be compiled by a C++ compiler. Therefore,
> I believe it is wrong for this code to be compiled with the
> -Wc++-compat warning enabled. This should be fixed somewhere in the
> configure script and/or M
"Kaveh Ghazi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right, here's the original link where I mention it:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-06/msg01658.html
>
> This involves a cast from one type to another through a void*. I haven't
> been able to convince myself that this is completely safe. If s
From: "NightStrike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 7/8/08, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
> -W options were applied to the trunk.
It's pretty hard to clean up all the warnings f
From: "Ian Lance Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kaveh mentioned these in his original e-mail, explained why he found
it difficult to fix, and added this to the Makefile so that it
wouldn't break the build.
# bitmap.c contains -Wc++compat warnings.
bitmap.o-warn = -Wno-error
This too should be fix
NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7/8/08, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
>> > -W options were applied to the trunk.
>>
>> It's pretty hard to clean up all
NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7/8/08, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
>> > -W options were applied to the trunk.
>>
>> It's pretty hard to clean up all
On 7/8/08, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
> > -W options were applied to the trunk.
>
> It's pretty hard to clean up all the warnings for every possible
> target. Also
On 7/8/08, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
> > -W options were applied to the trunk.
>
> It's pretty hard to clean up all the warnings for every possible
> target. Also
NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
> -W options were applied to the trunk.
It's pretty hard to clean up all the warnings for every possible
target. Also these are only warnings--this code is not compiled with
-Werror.
I
I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
-W options were applied to the trunk. The following are for an
x86_64-pc-linux to x86_64-pc-mingw32 cross compiler:
In file included from ../../../gcc/libgcc/../gcc/unwind-dw2.c:41:
../../../gcc/libgcc/../gcc/unwind-dw2-fde.h: I
14 matches
Mail list logo
