RFC: should we use -Werror? (& sample patch to do it)
Kaveh R. Ghazi
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu
Wed Sep 5 10:39:00 GMT 2001
> 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
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list