Re: Minor mudflap fallout

2013-10-26 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
On Sat, 26 Oct 2013, Andrew Pinski wrote: > I think you could use PRED_NORETURN which should be a reasonable replacement. I've totally missed that one, thanks. brgds, H-P

Re: Minor mudflap fallout

2013-10-26 Thread Jeff Law
On 10/26/13 05:19, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi Marek Polacek ha scritto: On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:46:41PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: ... seriously, in libmudflap.c++, 41, etc But aren't all these removed in commit 204090? Ah! I didn't notice something such aggressive was going on! Excell

Re: Minor mudflap fallout

2013-10-26 Thread Jeff Law
On 10/26/13 07:45, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: On Sat, 26 Oct 2013, Jeff Law wrote: It appears that mudflap creeped into one additional file (targhooks) between the time I bootstrapped the final change and committed the change. This also elimiantes PRED_MUDFLAP which I missed the first time aro

Re: Minor mudflap fallout

2013-10-26 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > On Sat, 26 Oct 2013, Jeff Law wrote: > >> It appears that mudflap creeped into one additional file (targhooks) between >> the time I bootstrapped the final change and committed the change. This >> also >> elimiantes PRED_MUDFLAP which

Re: Minor mudflap fallout

2013-10-26 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
On Sat, 26 Oct 2013, Jeff Law wrote: > It appears that mudflap creeped into one additional file (targhooks) between > the time I bootstrapped the final change and committed the change. This also > elimiantes PRED_MUDFLAP which I missed the first time around. > > Given this is currently breaking

Re: Minor mudflap fallout

2013-10-26 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi Marek Polacek ha scritto: >On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:46:41PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: >> ... seriously, in libmudflap.c++, 41, etc > >But aren't all these removed in commit 204090? Ah! I didn't notice something such aggressive was going on! Excellent! Thanks, Paolo

Re: Minor mudflap fallout

2013-10-26 Thread Marek Polacek
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:46:41PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: > ... seriously, in libmudflap.c++, 41, etc But aren't all these removed in commit 204090? Marek

Re: Minor mudflap fallout

2013-10-26 Thread Paolo Carlini
... seriously, in libmudflap.c++, 41, etc Paolo

Re: Minor mudflap fallout

2013-10-26 Thread Paolo Carlini
Marek Polacek ha scritto: >Which ones? All mudflap tests should be gone now. Just browse gcc-testresults ;) Paolo

Re: Minor mudflap fallout

2013-10-26 Thread Marek Polacek
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:31:34PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: > ... slightly out of topic, sorry Jeff, but your message made me think that we > should probably do something about the mudflap fails that we have got since > forever (at least on Linux): to your best knowledge is somebody actively

Re: Minor mudflap fallout

2013-10-26 Thread Paolo Carlini
... slightly out of topic, sorry Jeff, but your message made me think that we should probably do something about the mudflap fails that we have got since forever (at least on Linux): to your best knowledge is somebody actively working on those? Should be just xfails for now?!? Thanks! Paolo