On 02/08/2018 03:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Since my patch isn't the easy one liner I wanted it to be, perhaps we
>> should concentrate on Martin's patch, which is more robust, and has
>> testcases to boot!  His patch from last week also fixes a couple other
>> PRs.
>> Richard, would this be acceptable?  That is, could you or Jakub review
>> Martin's all-encompassing patch?  If so, I'll drop mine.
> Sorry, no - this one looks way too complicated.
>> Also, could someone pontificate on whether we want to fix
>> -Warray-bounds regressions for this release cycle?
> Remove bogus ones?  Yes.  Add "missing ones"?  No.
Seems reasonable.  I'll retarget the missed warning stuff for gcc-9 and
we'll consider those out-of-scope for gcc-8.

Still in scope would be bogus warnings.


Reply via email to