[Bug target/10936] -Wpadded produces warning for every file when target is powerpc

["bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10936



------- Additional Comments From bangerth@ices.utexas.edu  2003-05-27 20:08 -------
Subject: Re:  -Wpadded produces warning for every file when
 target is powerpc (fwd)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 14:31:31 -0400
From: David Taylor <dtaylor@emc.com>
To: Brian Murphy <brian@murphy.dk>
Cc: neroden@gcc.gnu.org, geoffk@geoffk.org, pinskia@physics.uc.edu,
     bangerth@ices.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: [Bug target/10936] -Wpadded produces warning for every file
    when target is powerpc 

> > Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 16:26:20 +0200
> > From: Brian Murphy <brian@murphy.dk>
> 
> > Otherwise I completely agree with you. Your bug and fix are identical to 
> > mine
> > and one of them is a duplicate. Since yours contains a testcase I think 
> > the current
> > status is the correct one.
> > 
> > /Brian

[I added Geoff to the cc list since he approved my patch.]

Brian,

I just took a closer look at your patch and your patch and my patch
*AREN'T* identical.  You modify two functions; I only modify one.  My
patch gets rid of having the warning on every file and doesn't break
stdarg/vararg functions.

What I didn't test -- and should have -- was whether with my patch
variable argument functions would generate the -Wpadded warning if it
was turned on.  Without testing, I now suspect that with just my
patch, it might.  That is, I now suspect that we need a patch to the
second function -- which is in your patch (i.e., 9337), but not in
mine.

Take care,

David





------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.