This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C PATCH] New -Woverflow option, pass OPT_Woverflow to warning.
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 01 May 2006 00:38:32 +0200
- Subject: Re: [C PATCH] New -Woverflow option, pass OPT_Woverflow to warning.
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0604301513210.9764-100000@www.eyesopen.com>
Roger Sayle <roger@eyesopen.com> writes:
| The following patch is the next installment in the continuing series of
| patches to clean-up TREE_OVERFLOW handling in GCC. This simple patch
| introduces the -Woverflow command line option so that OPT_Woverflow can
| be passed as the first argument to warning to control these diagnostics
| using -Wno-overflow. Future patches may potentially introduce new
| instances of overflow warnings, so having a command line option to silence
| them if necessary should minimize any inconvenience.
|
| The following patch has been tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu with a full
| "make bootstrap", all default languages, and regression tested with a
| top-level "make -k check" with no new failures. The documentation
| change was tested with a top-level "make dvi".
|
| Ok for mainline?
The patch is welcome in principle. However, since we are supposed to
be in stage 3, my natural question is: does it fix a regression? If
the answer is not, then please hold it for stage 1.
Is -Woverflow supposed to be actived by default, or part of -Wall?
-- Gaby