This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: -funsafe-loop-optimizations

From: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
Cc: Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>,Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>, dberlin at dberlin dot org,dje at watson dot ibm dot com, galibert at pobox dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,rth at redhat dot com
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:04:00 -0500
Subject: Re: -funsafe-loop-optimizations
References: <20050101171307.D95EB9611@nile.gnat.com> <m2fz1kaep3.fsf@greed.local> <41DB5E89.5010509@adacore.com> <20050105095210.B18337@synopsys.com>

Joe Buck wrote:

On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:27:05PM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:

We are talking about warnings here, so I don't see any slippery slope

Except for one key criterion: if we add a warning where there are likely
to be unsuppressable false positives, that warning cannot be included in
-Wall, as it breaks the commonly used "-Wall -Werror" combination that
is used for many projects..


I am not sure what you mean by unsuppressable. As has been pointed out
in this thread, you can always recode to avoid the ambiguity/warning,
and indeed such rewriting is probably good general practice.

References:
- Re: -funsafe-loop-optimizations
  - From: Robert Dewar
- Re: -funsafe-loop-optimizations
  - From: Geoffrey Keating
- Re: -funsafe-loop-optimizations
  - From: Robert Dewar
- Re: -funsafe-loop-optimizations
  - From: Joe Buck

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