Revision r231571 with Jan-Benedict Glaw’s fix for trailing whitespace.
Index: gcc/ChangeLog
===
--- gcc/ChangeLog (revision 231570)
+++ gcc/ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,13 @@
+2015-12-11 Jan-Benedict Glaw
+
> On 11 Dec 2015, at 11:25, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
>
> This breaks bootstrap on darwin:
>
> ../../work/gcc/config/darwin.c: In function 'bool
> darwin_use_anchors_for_symbol_p(const_rtx)':
> ../../work/gcc/config/darwin.c:3016:9: error: statement is indented as if it
> were guarded by...
This breaks bootstrap on darwin:
../../work/gcc/config/darwin.c: In function 'bool
darwin_use_anchors_for_symbol_p(const_rtx)':
../../work/gcc/config/darwin.c:3016:9: error: statement is indented as if it
were guarded by... [-Werror=misleading-indentation]
return default_use_anchors_for
On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 11:38 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/29/2015 10:49 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > Our documentation describes -Wall as enabling "all the warnings about
> > constructions that some users consider questionable, and that are easy to
> > avoid
> > (or modify to prevent the warning)
On 11/02/2015 12:35 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
diff --git a/gdb/ada-lang.c b/gdb/ada-lang.c
index fff4862..2559a36 100644
--- a/gdb/ada-lang.c
+++ b/gdb/ada-lang.c
@@ -11359,9 +11359,11 @@ ada_evaluate_subexp (struct type *expect_type, struct
expression *exp,
return value_zero (ada
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015, David Malcolm wrote:
I think we want the first kind of thing at -Wall, but I'm not so keen on
the second kind at -Wall. Is there precedent for "levels" of a warning?
(so e.g. pedantry level 1 at -Wall, level 2 at -Wextra, and have patch 1
be the difference between levels 1 a
On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 13:39 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 17:06 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Richard Biener
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/29
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015, David Malcolm wrote:
On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 17:06 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/29/2015 10:49 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
Our documentation describes -Wall as enabli
On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 11:21 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 17:06 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > >> On 10/29/2015 10:49 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > >>>
> > >
On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 17:06 -0500, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 10/29/2015 10:49 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Our documentation describes -Wall as enabling "all the warnings abo
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:03 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 10/29/2015 10:49 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>> Our documentation describes -Wall as enabling "all the warnings about
>>> constructions that some users consider questionable, and that
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/29/2015 10:49 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> Our documentation describes -Wall as enabling "all the warnings about
>> constructions that some users consider questionable, and that are easy to
>> avoid
>> (or modify to prevent the warning), e
On 10/29/2015 10:49 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
Our documentation describes -Wall as enabling "all the warnings about
constructions that some users consider questionable, and that are easy to avoid
(or modify to prevent the warning), even in conjunction with macros."
I believe that -Wmisleading-ind
13 matches
Mail list logo
