On 12/18/2014 12:55 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Thanks. I'm attaching what I just committed. This is a regression, I
suppose the patch is ok for 4_9-branch too, right?
Yes.
Jason
Hi,
On 12/18/2014 06:21 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 12/18/2014 11:31 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ warning_sentinel s (extra_warnings);
Let's add a comment about which warning we're avoiding here. OK with
that change.
Thanks. I'm attaching what I just committed. This is a regression, I
s
On 12/18/2014 11:31 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ warning_sentinel s (extra_warnings);
Let's add a comment about which warning we're avoiding here. OK with
that change.
Jason
Hi,
On 12/18/2014 03:20 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 12/18/2014 06:17 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Sure. The below uses the c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings mechanism and
passes testing. I wondered if in such cases we could alternately use the
warning_sentinel mechanism (moved to cp-tree.h of course) ?
On 12/18/2014 06:17 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Sure. The below uses the c_inhibit_evaluation_warnings mechanism and
passes testing. I wondered if in such cases we could alternately use the
warning_sentinel mechanism (moved to cp-tree.h of course) ?
That would make sense to me.
Jason
Hi,
On 12/17/2014 09:37 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
I'm uncomfortable with setting TREE_NO_WARNING on a decl just because
we don't want a warning for one particular use of it. How about
suppressing warnings across the call to build_static_cast?
Sure. The below uses the c_inhibit_evaluation_warnin
I'm uncomfortable with setting TREE_NO_WARNING on a decl just because we
don't want a warning for one particular use of it. How about
suppressing warnings across the call to build_static_cast?
Jason
