On Tue, 2016-02-23 at 09:51 +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 23/02/16 08:56, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016@09:53:57AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >> --- a/gcc/ChangeLog
> >> +++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
> >> @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
> >> +2016-02-23 Mark Wielaard
> >> + Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 09:51:05AM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> >>diff --git a/gcc/cgraphunit.c b/gcc/cgraphunit.c
> >>index 27a073a..8b3fddc 100644
> >>--- a/gcc/cgraphunit.c
> >>+++ b/gcc/cgraphunit.c
> >>@@ -917,6 +917,7 @@ walk_polymorphic_call_targets (hash_set
> >>*reachable_call_targ
On 23/02/16 08:56, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016@09:53:57AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+2016-02-23 Mark Wielaard
+ Jakub Jelinek
+
+ PR c/69911
+ * cgraphunit.c (check_global_declaration): Check main
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 09:53:57AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> --- a/gcc/ChangeLog
> +++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
> @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
> +2016-02-23 Mark Wielaard
> + Jakub Jelinek
> +
> + PR c/69911
> + * cgraphunit.c (check_global_declaration): Check main_input_filename
> + and DE
On Tue, 2016-02-23 at 09:26 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 08:55:40AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 19:20 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > It caused:
> > >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69911
> >
> > Apologies. Apparently main_input_f
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 08:55:40AM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 19:20 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > It caused:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69911
>
> Apologies. Apparently main_input_filename can be NULL. I am not entirely
> sure when that happens. Or ho
On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 19:20 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> It caused:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69911
Apologies. Apparently main_input_filename can be NULL. I am not entirely
sure when that happens. Or how I failed to see that test failure. I
think I didn't have java enabled, caus
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:57:56AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 02/20/2016 06:42 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> Note that given the discussion in the BZ, I'm going to consider this a
>> regression and thus eligible for the trunk.
>
> Thanks. Unf
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:57:56AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 02/20/2016 06:42 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Note that given the discussion in the BZ, I'm going to consider this a
> regression and thus eligible for the trunk.
Thanks. Unfortunately new warnings always seem to make some people
unhappy
On 02/22/2016 12:00 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:57:56AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/cgraphunit.c b/gcc/cgraphunit.c
index 0a745f0..27a073a 100644
--- a/gcc/cgraphunit.c
+++ b/gcc/cgraphunit.c
@@ -971,7 +974,7 @@ check_global_declaration (symtab_node *snode)
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:57:56AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >diff --git a/gcc/cgraphunit.c b/gcc/cgraphunit.c
> >index 0a745f0..27a073a 100644
> >--- a/gcc/cgraphunit.c
> >+++ b/gcc/cgraphunit.c
> >@@ -971,7 +974,7 @@ check_global_declaration (symtab_node *snode)
> > (TREE_CODE (decl) =
On 02/20/2016 06:42 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
There is some controversy about enabling -Wunused-const-variable for all
unused static const variables because some feel there are too many errors
exposed in header files. Create two levels for -Wunused-const-variable.
One level to only check for unuse
12 matches
Mail list logo
