:hjl.to...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 19 April 2012 15:32
>> To: Manuel López-Ibáñez
>> Cc: Christian Bruel; Richard Guenther; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Joseph
>> S. Myers; Jason Merrill
>> Subject: Re: PING: [PATCH] Fix PRs c/52283/37985
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 a
}
> -Original Message-
> From: H.J. Lu [mailto:hjl.to...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 19 April 2012 15:32
> To: Manuel López-Ibáñez
> Cc: Christian Bruel; Richard Guenther; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Joseph
> S. Myers; Jason Merrill
> Subject: Re: PING: [PATCH] Fix PRs c/52283/37985
>
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 19 April 2012 11:11, Christian Bruel wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/18/2012 11:51 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>>> wrote:
On 18 April 2012 10:29, Christian Bruel wrote:
>
>>
On 19 April 2012 11:11, Christian Bruel wrote:
>
>
> On 04/18/2012 11:51 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>> wrote:
>>> On 18 April 2012 10:29, Christian Bruel wrote:
Is it OK for trunk, bootstrapped and regtested on x86
>>>
>>> I thi
On 04/18/2012 11:51 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>> On 18 April 2012 10:29, Christian Bruel wrote:
>>>
>>> Is it OK for trunk, bootstrapped and regtested on x86
>>
>> I think Joseph Myers is on vacation, and there are no other C FE
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 18 April 2012 10:29, Christian Bruel wrote:
>>
>> Is it OK for trunk, bootstrapped and regtested on x86
>
> I think Joseph Myers is on vacation, and there are no other C FE
> reviewers, but since this is c-common and convert.c, per
On 18 April 2012 10:29, Christian Bruel wrote:
>
> Is it OK for trunk, bootstrapped and regtested on x86
I think Joseph Myers is on vacation, and there are no other C FE
reviewers, but since this is c-common and convert.c, perhaps Jason
and/or Richard can review it?
Thanks,
Manuel.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg00191.html
and discussed in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52283
I would like to close the associated PRs to fix a few discrepancies with
the folding of constant expressions warnings.
Original patch from Manu was slightly modified to refl
As far as I know, this patch hasn't been reviewed:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/150636/
Cheers,
Manuel.
On 4 April 2012 10:17, Christian Bruel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is it OK to push the cleaning of TREE_NO_WARNING to fix the constant
> expressions errors discrepancies, as discussed in bugz
On 4 April 2012 13:05, Christian Bruel wrote:
>
>
> The testscase was part of the attached patch, along with the ChangeLog
> entries
You are right! Sorry, I may have been looking at the wrong place.
> It was bootstrapped and regtested for C and C++ on x86 (that was in bugzilla
> comment #22), so
On 04/04/2012 11:38 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Hi Christian,
You have to add the testcases from both PR52283 and PR37985, and an
appropriate Changelog, and bootstrap+regression test everything and
double-check that the new testcases don't fail and no old testcases
fail with the patch (by co
Hi Christian,
You have to add the testcases from both PR52283 and PR37985, and an
appropriate Changelog, and bootstrap+regression test everything and
double-check that the new testcases don't fail and no old testcases
fail with the patch (by comparing with the testcases that fail without
the patch
Hello,
Is it OK to push the cleaning of TREE_NO_WARNING to fix the constant
expressions errors discrepancies, as discussed in bugzilla #52283, now
that the trunk is open ?
Many thanks,
2012-03-29 Manuel López-Ibáñez
PR c/52283/37985
* stmt.c (warn_if_unused_value): Skip NOP_EXPR.
13 matches
Mail list logo
