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]

Re: RFC: should we use -Werror? (& sample patch to do it)


 > From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
 > 
 > On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 11:32:50PM -0400, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
 > > That's a big lose since in effect warning regressions become bootstrap
 > > failures for most people.  So I'm open to suggestion on that front.
 > 
 > Autoconf stage1 on installed gcc version being "new enough"?
 > r~

Well, "new enough" in this case means "3.1 20010825 (experimental)"
when I put in this patch:

 > 2001-08-24  Kaveh R. Ghazi  <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
 >  
 >         * fold-const.c (tree_expr_nonnegative_p): Handle *_DIV_EXPR,
 >         *_MOD_EXPR, SAVE_EXPR and NON_LVALUE_EXPR.

That patch got rid of some false positives.

I guess eventually 3.1 will be released and checking for it in stage1
would hit sometimes. :-)

--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu		Qwest Internet Solutions


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