This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: PATCH: revive function address warning

From: Ben Elliston <bje at au1 dot ibm dot com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 00:16:39 +1100
Subject: Re: PATCH: revive function address warning
References: <20051212001118.GA17873@ozlabs.au.ibm.com> <200512121830.jBCIU0VK030689@greed.delorie.com> <m3vexu5abo.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net> <20051213060951.GA16100@ozlabs.au.ibm.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0512152138510.22232@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

> But have you actually moved that warning (or various similar
> warnings, presently unconditional) under this option?  If so, the
> -Wextra documentation saying

No, but I intend to next week.  Whether it stays under -Wall is a
simpler matter that we can continue to discuss.

Ben

References:
- PATCH: revive function address warning
  - From: Ben Elliston
- Re: PATCH: revive function address warning
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: PATCH: revive function address warning
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: PATCH: revive function address warning
  - From: Ben Elliston
- Re: PATCH: revive function address warning
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]