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: Fix powerpc64 g77



What about the code:

  if (TARGET_HAS_FOO) {
    x = 1 / TARGET_HAS_FOO;
  }

That code is clearly legal.
I fully appreciate the evils of false positives; I used
to build tools that were judged more on how many false positives
they generated that on how many true postives they generated, and
certainly than on how many true positives they missed.

I am not sanguine about the idea of doing value range propagation before
issuing warning messages.  You are welcome to prepare a patch that does
that, so that we can see how invasive it is. :-)

I would far prefer to deal with the problem the way everyone else's
compilers have:

 #pragma nowarn <warning-id>

modulo syntax, use of comments vs. #pragma/_Pragma.

Beyond that, I'm not going to get into this further; I just don't have
time.  It has all the hallmarks of a religous war, and I think we have
bigger fish to fry.

--
Mark Mitchell                mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC            http://www.codesourcery.com


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