On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/28/2011 03:50 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
This patch from Silvius Rus adds a new flag (-fstrict-enum-precision).
While porting the patch to 4.6, I noticed that the C++ FE now has a
similar flag that seems to have similar
On 04/28/2011 03:50 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
This patch from Silvius Rus adds a new flag (-fstrict-enum-precision).
While porting the patch to 4.6, I noticed that the C++ FE now has a
similar flag that seems to have similar semantics (-fstrict-enums).
Silvius's patch is used to disable some
This patch from Silvius Rus adds a new flag (-fstrict-enum-precision).
While porting the patch to 4.6, I noticed that the C++ FE now has a
similar flag that seems to have similar semantics (-fstrict-enums).
Silvius's patch is used to disable some switch() optimizations that
assume enum types can
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 03:50:45PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
Committed to google/main. Jason, Silvius, what do you think would be
the best approach to merge this into trunk?
When this code does get merged to trunk, can the testcases abort() on
failure rather than returning 1? This is
... are the testcases formatted according to the GNU guidelines, in terms, for
example, of open and closed curly braces? I don't think so, I see some weird
(sorry, after all those years unavoidably look to me *really* weird) open
braces ending lines?
Paolo
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 15:57, Paolo Carlini pcarl...@gmail.com wrote:
... are the testcases formatted according to the GNU guidelines
They weren't. I've run indent -gnu on all of them. Thanks for noticing.
Diego.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
This patch from Silvius Rus adds a new flag (-fstrict-enum-precision).
While porting the patch to 4.6, I noticed that the C++ FE now has a
similar flag that seems to have similar semantics (-fstrict-enums).
Silvius's
