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 C++ testsuite failures.

From: Paolo Bonzini <paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:17:26 +0100
Subject: Re: Fix C++ testsuite failures.
References: <9784d3ab0603071525j617652f7v58490cd0c9582c0a@mail.gmail.com> <8e2456957be0ed5641e7a2b1f080b692@physics.uc.edu> <440E91BF.1080703@lu.unisi.ch> <440E92A3.10400@codesourcery.com>

Sure, but the address needs to be passed (at least until inlining) as the "this" pointer of C::operator int (). The wording is misleading, but at least at -O0 a warning is correct.
I think the warning is appropriate at all optimization levels.  The
warning is telling the user that they are (implicitly) trying to take
the address of a register variable.

Wholly agreed. My comment about -O0 is because the address-of can be optimized out at higher optimization levels.

Paolo

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Fix C++ testsuite failures.
  - From: Mark Mitchell

References:
- Fix C++ testsuite failures.
  - From: Lee Millward
- Re: Fix C++ testsuite failures.
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: Fix C++ testsuite failures.
  - From: Paolo Bonzini
- Re: Fix C++ testsuite failures.
  - From: Mark Mitchell

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