This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: should we use -Werror? (& sample patch to do it)
- To: rth at redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: RFC: should we use -Werror? (& sample patch to do it)
- From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 13:39:02 -0400 (EDT)
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
> From: Richard Henderson <email@example.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"?
Well, "new enough" in this case means "3.1 20010825 (experimental)"
when I put in this patch:
> 2001-08-24 Kaveh R. Ghazi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> * 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
email@example.com Qwest Internet Solutions