The bootstrap issues with a recent patch of mine led me to run make
check-g++-strict-gc, which turned up a GC problem with this code, fixed
thus.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit f2f82e0908b807a0d339a00b434913fc0886c0cc
Author: Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com
Date: Mon
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com wrote:
Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com writes:
On 09/07/2011 02:01 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
+
/* Process declarations and variables for C compiler.
Blank line at the top of the file?
Oops, I noticed it and changed it in
Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com writes:
I think -Wunused and -Wall should imply -Wunused-local-typedefs unless
the user specifies -Wno-unused-local-typedefs.
Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com writes:
I actually first tried this (actually adding it to -Wall -extra and
-Wunused) and found out
On 09/08/2011 04:50 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Is this be OK for trunk when PR preprocessor/7263 gets in, assuming it
passes bootstrap and tests on trunk at that moment?
Yes, except...
--- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
@@ -3505,6 +3505,7 @@ To suppress this warning use the
Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com writes:
On 09/08/2011 04:50 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Is this be OK for trunk when PR preprocessor/7263 gets in, assuming it
passes bootstrap and tests on trunk at that moment?
Yes, except...
--- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
@@ -3505,6
On 09/08/2011 05:54 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Jason Merrillja...@redhat.com writes:
Don't you want to say This warning is also enabled by
@option{-Wunused}, which is enabled by @option{-Wall}.?
For the sake of consistency, I followed the pattern used for the other
-Wunused-* options in that
Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com writes:
On 08/08/2011 03:52 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
+ cfun-language = NULL;
Might as well ggc_free it first.
Done.
+ /* We want T to be either a type or a TYPE_DECL. */
Comment is out of date.
Removed.
Does __attribute ((used)) on the typedef
On 09/07/2011 02:01 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
+
/* Process declarations and variables for C compiler.
Blank line at the top of the file?
Copyright (C) 1988, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
@@
Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com writes:
On 09/07/2011 02:01 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
+
/* Process declarations and variables for C compiler.
Blank line at the top of the file?
Oops, I noticed it and changed it in the aggregated patch I sent, but
forgot to update the diff against the
On 08/08/2011 03:52 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
+ cfun-language = NULL;
Might as well ggc_free it first.
+ /* We want T to be either a type or a TYPE_DECL. */
Comment is out of date.
Does __attribute ((used)) on the typedef prevent the warning?
Jason
.
Thanks.
From: Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:02:07 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] PR c++/33255 - Support -Wunused-local-typedefs warning
gcc/
* c-decl.c (lookup_name): Use the new
maybe_record_typedef_use.
(pushdecl): Use the new
] PR c++/33255 - Support -Wunused-local-typedefs warning
gcc/
* c-decl.c (lookup_name): Use the new
maybe_record_typedef_use.
(pushdecl): Use the new
record_locally_defined_typedef.
(store_parm_decls): Allocate cfun-language.
(finish_function): Use
So I finally got back to this and updated the patch according to the
comments below.
Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com writes:
On 07/27/2011 01:54 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
+ /* Set of typedefs that are used in this function. */
+ struct pointer_set_t * GTY((skip)) used_local_typedefs;
Is
On 08/06/2011 06:57 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
@@ -4340,6 +4340,8 @@ c_sizeof_or_alignof_type (location_t loc,
value = fold_convert_loc (loc, size_type_node, value);
gcc_assert (!TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE (TREE_TYPE (value)));
+ maybe_record_local_typedef_use (type);
Why is this still needed?
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Jason Merrill wrote:
Looking a bit further, it looks like the C FE uses cfun-language only
to store the context of the outer function when faced with a nested
function. This is done by c_push_function_context, called by
c_parser_declaration_or_fndef. Otherwise,
On 07/27/2011 01:54 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
+ /* Set of typedefs that are used in this function. */
+ struct pointer_set_t * GTY((skip)) used_local_typedefs;
Is there a reason not to just use TREE_USED for this?
+ /* Vector of locally defined typedefs, for
+
Hi,
I think -Wunused and -Wall should imply -Wunused-local-typedefs unless
the user specifies -Wno-unused-local-typedefs.
IMHO, this is a very good idea looking forward, but then I think we
should make sure the warning plays well with system headers either as-is
or together with some other
Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com writes:
On 07/27/2011 01:54 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
+ /* Set of typedefs that are used in this function. */
+ struct pointer_set_t * GTY((skip)) used_local_typedefs;
Is there a reason not to just use TREE_USED for this?
I wasn't sure if that flag wasn't
Hi,
I think -Wunused and -Wall should imply -Wunused-local-typedefs unless
the user specifies -Wno-unused-local-typedefs.
I actually first tried this (actually adding it to -Wall -extra and
-Wunused) and found out the following issue.
A typedef can be defined in a macro in a system header, be
Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com writes:
On 07/27/2011 01:54 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
+ /* Set of typedefs that are used in this function. */
+ struct pointer_set_t * GTY((skip)) used_local_typedefs;
Is there a reason not to just use TREE_USED for this?
+ /* Vector of locally defined
On 07/29/2011 08:36 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Looking into this a bit, it seems to me that I can access
cfun-language-base (of type c_language_function) from inside either
the C or C++ FE only, as the type of cfun-language -- which is of type
struct language_function -- is only defined either in
On 07/29/2011 03:35 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
So do you guys think we should add it nonetheless and just add
-Wno-unused-local-typedefs to the tests that exhibit the above issue
before fixing PR preprocessor/7263?
Does your set of linemap patches fix the issue? In that case, we can
add it
Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com writes:
On 07/29/2011 03:35 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
So do you guys think we should add it nonetheless and just add
-Wno-unused-local-typedefs to the tests that exhibit the above issue
before fixing PR preprocessor/7263?
Does your set of linemap patches fix
Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com writes:
On 07/29/2011 08:36 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Looking into this a bit, it seems to me that I can access
cfun-language-base (of type c_language_function) from inside either
the C or C++ FE only, as the type of cfun-language -- which is of type
struct
On 07/29/2011 10:27 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Jason Merrillja...@redhat.com writes:
On 07/29/2011 08:36 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Looking into this a bit, it seems to me that I can access
cfun-language-base (of type c_language_function) from inside either
the C or C++ FE only, as the type of
have fixed thus.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu against trunk.
--
Dodji
From b4612a6dd8a642795fe81398b372746f19c86614 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:02:07 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] PR c++/33255 - Support
26 matches
Mail list logo
