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: [RFA] finish warning_at -> warning transition


2009/4/29 Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org>:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>> <lopezibanez@gmail.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?

I guess that every modified call to "warning" will create a conflict
which should automatically resolved in favour of the branch, then just
s/warning_at/warning/ and done.

How much does the branch differ from trunk?

Cheers,

Manuel.


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