This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFA] finish warning_at -> warning transition
- From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
- To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>, Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org List" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:03:15 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFA] finish warning_at -> warning transition
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Now the patch. Bootstrapped with --enable-languages=all,obj-c++ on
>> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu revision 146956.
>> OK for trunk?
> Also it would probably be easier to review if the patch would be split
> into a patch adding missing location arguments and a patch renaming
> warning_at to warning. But - I can see this will require maybe pointless
> hassle on your side.
Just a random thought: how does this conflict with diagnostics branch?