On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 01:14:43AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Jeff King wrote:
> > On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 12:45:30AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > Jeff King wrote:
> > > > On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 01:12:53AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So it looks like gcc is smarter now, and in trying to fix a few
> > > > > warnings
> > > > > we generated hundreds more.
> > > > >
> > > > > This reverts commit e208f9cc7574f5980faba498d0aa30b4defeb34f.
> > > >
> > > > And now we've gone the other way, and re-enabled the initial warnings.
> > > > Can we come up with a solution that helps both cases?
> > >
> > > What initial warnings? As I explained already I don't get any warnings
> > > with this patch series in gcc 4.9.0.
> > The "few warnings" in your statement quoted above.
> > You could try reading the commit message of the commit you are
> > reverting, which explains it, but the short answer is: try compiling
> > with -O3.
> Sigh. And I'm the one with the abrasive style of communication.
I apologize if that seemed abrasive. I am slightly annoyed that you
seemed to be reverting my commit without understanding (or dealing with)
the problem that the original fixed.
But I was _also_ trying to point you in the right direction by directing
you to -O3. Do you see the problem now? And did you look at the
follow-up patch I sent?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html