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 V3] Fix bootstrap/43684 (was) Re: [Patch] Remove "set but unused" vars from rs6000.c.



On 9 Apr 2010, at 14:29, Jakub Jelinek wrote:


On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 08:26:49AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
	case OPTION_static:
+#ifdef HAVE_LD_STATIC_DYNAMIC
	  static_linking = 1;
+#endif

case OPTION_l:

Is the fall through intentional? If so, could you add the comment /* FALLTHRU */?

I believe there should be break; instead of FALLTHRU - this is about whether gfortran -o foo -static should complain or not. It actually complains even without the break, but for very different reason - lookup_option never returns OPTION_static, guess PR31400 change was buggy. So, static_linking is never actually set to non-zero.

hmm then I've just committed the wrong thing/
Obviously, I didn't alter the fall-through or not - so that's unchanged by my patch.


As I read the code it needed to count this as an item to be included in the re-written C/L.

Iain.


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