Basile STARYNKEVITCH writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> I recently added the new -Wjump-misses-init warning option. It warns
>> when a goto or switch jumps into the scope of an initialized variable
>> without actually initializing the variable. I added the warning to
>> -Wall because it seems
Ralf Wildenhues writes:
> * Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 07:12:50AM CEST:
>> Any opinions on this? Should I take the new warning out of -Wall?
>
> Is the missing of an initialization detected elsewhere, or can it be
> detected elsewhere, maybe only in cases where it actually le
On 06/20/09 04:59, Jason Merrill wrote:
> clone will get whatever branch is currently active in the cloned
> repository, doesn't matter what it's called.
>
> Currently master is out of date, so it's worse than nothing.
Ok, culled.
> Any thoughts on what to do about the non-branch directories un
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Ralf Wildenhues writes:
>
>> * Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 07:12:50AM CEST:
>>> Any opinions on this? Should I take the new warning out of -Wall?
>>
>> Is the missing of an initialization detected elsewhere, or can it
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 6:17 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Ralf Wildenhues writes:
>>
>>> * Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 07:12:50AM CEST:
Any opinions on this? Should I take the new warning out of -Wall?
>>>
>>> Is the mis
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 6:50 AM, James Dennett wrote:
>> I think it is a bad idea to include it in -Wall. You fixed 3 warnings in
>> gcc and I fixed 1 in binutils. If you have thousands of packages in C,
>> -Wall may generate hundreds of warnings.
>
> The same is true of any new -Wall warning that
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 6:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 6:50 AM, James Dennett wrote:
>
>>> I think it is a bad idea to include it in -Wall. You fixed 3 warnings in
>>> gcc and I fixed 1 in binutils. If you have thousands of packages in C,
>>> -Wall may generate hundreds of warnin
H.J. Lu wrote:
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 6:50 AM, James Dennett wrote:
I think it is a bad idea to include it in -Wall. You fixed 3 warnings in
gcc and I fixed 1 in binutils. If you have thousands of packages in C,
-Wall may generate hundreds of warnings.
The same is true of any new -Wall warnin
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I recently added the new -Wjump-misses-init warning option. It warns
> when a goto or switch jumps into the scope of an initialized variable
> without actually initializing the variable. I added the warning to
> -Wall because it seems to
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> I must say I am really surprised at the claim that this particular
> warning will cause lots of new warnings. Do we really have thousands
> of packages with this kind of dubious construct?
I believe there are lot of C programmers out there th
Robert Dewar wrote:
[ ... ]
But then don't use -Wall. If you are asking for -Wall, you
want all new warnings, and you have to undertake to investigate
them. If you don't want this kind of movement, then specify the
precise warnings you want (even that may generate new warnings
if a given specific
Imagine a loop like this
EXECUTE_IF_SET_IN_BITMAP (something, 0, i, bi)
{
bitmap_clear_bit (something, i)
[ ... whatever code we want to process i, ... ]
}
This code is unsafe.
If bit I happens to be the only bit set in the current bitmap word, then
bitmap_clear_bit will free the curr
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> Imagine a loop like this
>
> EXECUTE_IF_SET_IN_BITMAP (something, 0, i, bi)
> {
> bitmap_clear_bit (something, i)
> [ ... whatever code we want to process i, ... ]
> }
>
> This code is unsafe.
>
> If bit I happens to be the only bit set in
Jeff Law wrote:
While I agree with most of what you said Robert, reality is I have run
into long time GCC users with extremely large codebases who use -Wall
-Werror and go ballistic any time new warnings are added (the process to
get even trivial fixes into their codebase is, umm, lengthy to p
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
I must say I am really surprised at the claim that this particular
warning will cause lots of new warnings. Do we really have thousands
of packages with this kind of dubious construct?
I believe there are lot of C pr
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
> I think it is a bad idea to include it in -Wall. You fixed 3 warnings in
> gcc and I fixed 1 in binutils. If you have thousands of packages in C,
> -Wall may generate hundreds of warnings. It will make gcc 4.5.0 unusable
> to those people.
A warning is a wa
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> I think it is a bad idea to include it in -Wall. You fixed 3 warnings in
>> gcc and I fixed 1 in binutils. If you have thousands of packages in C,
>> -Wall may generate hundreds of warnings. It will mak
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Michael Meissner wrote:
> All of my comments about the internals of the mep would be things to do
> if you desired, but as port maintainer, I don't see that we have to
> apply standards set for the rest of the compiler (if we did, probably
> half of the ports would be rejected
Hello,
I am Soufiane BAGHDADI, an Algerian student, I worked before on some
parsers (lex&yacc, javacc) and I loved this domain, so I want to
participate in the gcc project as it is a great open source compiler
and as I have a lot of time this summer.
I am working on creating an OpenCL for ATI grap
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> I think it is a bad idea to include it in -Wall. You fixed 3 warnings in
>> gcc and I fixed 1 in binutils. If you have thousands of packages in C,
>> -Wall may generate hundreds of warnings. It will make gcc 4.5.0 unusable
>> to those people.
>
> A warning i
On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 17:01 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> > Imagine a loop like this
> >
> > EXECUTE_IF_SET_IN_BITMAP (something, 0, i, bi)
> > {
> > bitmap_clear_bit (something, i)
> > [ ... whatever code we want to process i, ... ]
>
Jeff Law writes:
> I think (as always) we need to find a balance between throwing
> everything *we* find valuable in -Wall and avoiding all changes to
> accommodate users on the other end of the spectrum. With that in mind
> I'd ask Ian to chime in and say something about the # of warnings we
>
On Jun 18, 2009, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> - Memory consumption in cc1/cc1plus at -Ox -g over that set of apps.
I had to use a different machine for this test. The one I was using had
to be taken off line and moved, for reasons beyond my control, and I
probably won't be able to get into it to c
23 matches
Mail list logo
