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: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:38:34 -0800
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> <45ECA7A4.3060904@redhat.com>

Diego Novillo wrote:
> 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.

It is OK with with me to backport the changes, even though this is
clearly late in the cycle.  None of the choices are particularly pretty.

Ian, please do the backport and check in the changes as soon as you can.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

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
- Re: Signed overflow patches OK for 4.2?
  - From: Diego Novillo

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