Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 04:09:16AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > The subtlety I'm refering to is not that "void* p = &p" is not well-defined,
| > but rather the fact that when we see
| >
| > T t = some-expression-involving-t;
| >
| > we would like
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 04:09:16AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> The subtlety I'm refering to is not that "void* p = &p" is not well-defined,
> but rather the fact that when we see
>
> T t = some-expression-involving-t;
>
> we would like to warn for cases where there is a high probability
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 11 Jan 2007 02:08:48 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > I'm well aware of the history of "-Winit-self". The issue is more
| > subtile that you would like to make it appear. You would have to study
| > more carefully the
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 02:08:48AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > I'm well aware of the history of "-Winit-self". The issue is more
| > subtile that you would like to make it appear. You would have to study
| > more carefully the threads relating to this
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 02:08:48AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> I'm well aware of the history of "-Winit-self". The issue is more
> subtile that you would like to make it appear. You would have to study
> more carefully the threads relating to this issue. If you dig the
> archive, you should
On 11 Jan 2007 02:08:48 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm well aware of the history of "-Winit-self". The issue is more
subtile that you would like to make it appear. You would have to study
more carefully the threads relating to this issue. If you dig the
archive, you shou
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 10 Jan 2007 18:48:58 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > |
| > | It seems to me that the only reason for Winit-self to exists is that
| > | people try to silence the -Wuninitialized warnings using the init-self
| > | hack
On 10 Jan 2007 18:48:58 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| It seems to me that the only reason for Winit-self to exists is that
| people try to silence the -Wuninitialized warnings using the init-self
| hack and then other people have to work-around that hack.
I don't believe
On 10/01/07, Chris Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris Pickett wrote:
> I have a question: does -Wextra now imply -Wconversion since
> -Wconversion was split into -Wconversion and -Wtraditional-conversion?
I mistakenly thought it was under -Wextra. So the question should be,
does -Wtraditi
Chris Pickett wrote:
I have a question: does -Wextra now imply -Wconversion since
-Wconversion was split into -Wconversion and -Wtraditional-conversion?
I mistakenly thought it was under -Wextra. So the question should be,
does -Wtraditional now imply -Wtraditional-conversion since -Wconversi
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
5. Fix what I have labelled as errors.
That we definitely should do. I believe some things have been changed
in our current development tree (to become GCC 4.3) already. It would
be great could you have a look and perhaps produce a patch for one or
more of these; is thi
On 10/01/07, Chris Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As far as I can tell, Manuel's original response was saying that one
should not list -Wno-strict-prototypes in the default section on the
basis of -Wstrict-prototypes not being default.
Correct.
Chris Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > "Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > [...]
| > | > I assume the -Wno-xxx that are set by default would be moved to
| > the
| > | > "default" section?
|
| My guess is that there is a misunderstanding here.
mo
Chris Pickett wrote:
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > I assume the -Wno-xxx that are set by default would be moved to the
| > "default" section?
If you meant something else in addition, can you give an example?
I'm not subscribed to the list and so I missed Tom's message:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/g
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > I assume the -Wno-xxx that are set by default would be moved to the
| > "default" section?
My guess is that there is a misunderstanding here.
| Warnings that are not active by default are obviously disabled,
Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > "Chris" == Chris Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Chris> For one reason or another, I have spent a fair amount of time
| Chris> reading and getting confused by the warnings documentation.
|
| Chris> 3. Get rid of the -Wno-xxx option listings
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > I assume the -Wno-xxx that are set by default would be moved to the
| > "default" section?
| >
|
| No.
Why?
| Warnings that are not active by default are obviously disabled,
| there is no need to mention them.
I don't understand. Pl
> "Chris" == Chris Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> For one reason or another, I have spent a fair amount of time
Chris> reading and getting confused by the warnings documentation.
Chris> 3. Get rid of the -Wno-xxx option listings, since it is not always
Chris> the case that -Wxxx
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 10 Jan 2007 05:47:19 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I assume the -Wno-xxx that are set by default would be moved to the
"default" section?
No. Warnings that are not active by default are obviously disa
On 10 Jan 2007 05:47:19 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| 1. Create a default section, at the top, and put all options enabled
| by default there.
|
| 2. Try to group options so that they are closer to other connected
| nodes in the g
Chris Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hi,
|
| For one reason or another, I have spent a fair amount of time reading
| and getting confused by the warnings documentation. This applies to
| the optimizations as well, but I thought I would start with the
| warnings. Today I sat down and creat
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Chris,
I see you have not received any response to this yet, so let me give
it a try.
Thanks! I unsubscribed from the list and was surprised to see this in
my inbox. Please continue to CC me on replies.
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Chris Pickett wrote:
5. Fix what I have
Chris,
I see you have not received any response to this yet, so let me give
it a try.
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Chris Pickett wrote:
1. Create a default section, at the top, and put all options enabled by
default there.
This sounds like an interesting proposal. Gaby, Joseph, what do you
think?
Chris Pickett wrote:
I have attached the graph. I am asking for one or more people to
comment on its correctness, and what I consider to be errors, as
indicated in comments.
I did this against 4.1.1. I just looked at the trunk invoke.texi, and I
see it has changed a bit, so just to be clear
Hi,
For one reason or another, I have spent a fair amount of time reading
and getting confused by the warnings documentation. This applies to the
optimizations as well, but I thought I would start with the warnings.
Today I sat down and created a dependency graph for all of the options
in th
25 matches
Mail list logo
