On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:58 PM, David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Kim Gräsman <kim.gras...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > David, > > > > Would you do the honors? I don't have commit access. > > If we come up with a good solution, sure. Sorry, I meant adding ARM GCC 4.7 to the list here: http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#check-here But it's a little premature until we know why it's failing. > > It would be best, of course, if there was a way to phrase this so GCC > > doesn't die, but this pattern is everywhere so it might be futile to > solve > > it only here. > > Yeah, if this fires for all our switch-over-enum-without-default... I > don't think we'll fix it (& there's no point fixing 3 cases if we > leave hundreds more in-tree). So if it's just these three, that's > something & would still need comments most likely. But it'd be better > if there were a solution that didn't suppress diagnostics (oh, and > this change as-is will probably fire Clang's -Wcovered-switch-default > warning... which we'd have to suppress). > Definitely. Maybe Cy can provide more details on the environment where this happens (e.g. compiler command for this file, exact error message, ...) Thanks, - Kim
_______________________________________________ cfe-users mailing list cfe-users@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-users
