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: Ping for build-with-cxx patches


Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> This is a ping for some C++ frontend patches.  I believe that these are
> the only remaining patches required for --enable-build-with-cxx to work.
> 
> * Add --static-libstdc++ option to the g++ driver.
>   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg01635.html

OK.

> * Avoid inappropriate -Wsign-compare warnings.
>   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg01402.html

+/* Even unsigned enum types promote to signed int.  We don't want to

This comment is a bit inaccurate.  I believe that unsigned enum types
promote to signed int only if the range of the enumerators is
sufficiently small that a signed int can hold all of them, right?  If
so, please clarify the comment; perhaps just by saying "Even some
unsigned enum ...".

Also, we will still get warnings about "-1 < E" (where "E" is an
enumerator) being always true if we set TREE_NO_WARNING here?

> * Avoid incorrect "no effect" warnings.
>   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg01379.html

OK, but with a comment before the setting of "side_effects".  Perhaps:

/* Macros like:

     #define ABORT_IF(X) (X) ? abort() : (void)0;

are common.  In this case, only one of the conditionally-executed
expressions has side effects.  To avoid spurious warnings, we only warn
if neither conditionally-executed expression has side effects. */

> * Don't warn about a logical op RHS which is never executed.
>   http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg01643.html

OK.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713


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