On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 10:08:38PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On Tue, 9 May 2017 at 18:59, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 06:55:12PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > > ping https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg00135.html
> >
> > The libgomp patch is ok
On Tue, 9 May 2017 at 18:59, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 06:55:12PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> > ping https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg00135.html
>
> The libgomp patch is ok provided the warning is added.
> Though, should it be in -Wall and not say just -
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 06:55:12PM +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> ping https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg00135.html
The libgomp patch is ok provided the warning is added.
Though, should it be in -Wall and not say just -Wextra?
Jakub
ping https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg00135.html
Thanks,
Prathamesh
On 2 May 2017 at 22:43, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi,
> During gcc bootstrap, there's a couple of places where the warning got
> triggered.
> I suppose this wasn't a false positive since enum gomp_schedule_type
>
Hi,
During gcc bootstrap, there's a couple of places where the warning got
triggered.
I suppose this wasn't a false positive since enum gomp_schedule_type
and enum omp_sched_t
are different types (although they have same set of values) ?
Bootstrap+tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Is this patch
