On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 10/23/2011 11:05 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Eric Botcazou<ebotca...@adacore.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, the below appears to work for me. Eric shall I commit it?
>>>
>>> I have other errors for config/i386/i386.c on my x86-64 machine. But are
>>> we
>>> sure that we want to warn on
>>>
>>> static unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT unknown[4] = { -1, -1, 0, 0 };
>>>
>>> with -Wall? This seems overly picky to me.
>>>
>> The warning probably should not be in -Wall. It is fairly recent in C++,
>> and I
>> think we should allow users to adapt before enabling it by default.
>
> The issue is that we wanted -Wconversion to be enabled by -Wc++0x-compat
> (after all, it's what the PR asks) but the latter is *already* in -Wall.
yes.
>
> Personally, I would be in favor of taking -Wc++0x-compat out of -Wall.
>
Patch pre-approved.
It makes sense though that -Wextra implies -Wc++0x-compat.
