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: Signed overflow patches OK for 4.2?

From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
Cc: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:28:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Signed overflow patches OK for 4.2?
References: <m38xebmpez.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <m34pozmob1.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <de8d50360703051241w64ace759p4da7f3e167879561@mail.gmail.com> <200703052159.39474.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <45EC8809.1030101@redhat.com> <m3zm6rl1fn.fsf@localhost.localdomain>

Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 03/05/07 18:23:

> I gather you are saying here that it is OK with you to backport
> -fstrict-overflow/-Wstrict-overflow to 4.2.

Yes.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Signed overflow patches OK for 4.2?
  - From: Mark Mitchell

References:
- Signed overflow patches OK for 4.2?
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Signed overflow patches OK for 4.2?
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Signed overflow patches OK for 4.2?
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: Signed overflow patches OK for 4.2?
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: Signed overflow patches OK for 4.2?
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: Signed overflow patches OK for 4.2?
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor

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