Is it possible that this is responsible for a bootstrap failure introduced
in the last 27 hours or so?
/scratch/tmp/gerald/gcc-HEAD/gcc/tree-object-size.c:44:59: error: narrowing
conversion of '-0x1' from 'int' to 'long unsigned int' inside {
} [-Werror=narrowing]
On 10/23/2011 10:07 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Is it possible that this is responsible for a bootstrap failure introduced
in the last 27 hours or so?
/scratch/tmp/gerald/gcc-HEAD/gcc/tree-object-size.c:44:59: error: narrowing
conversion of '-0x1' from 'int' to 'long unsigned
The code in question is
static unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT unknown[4] = { -1, -1, 0, 0 };
This is on amd64-unknown-freebsd8.0, though I am puzzled it does not
seem to trigger for other 64-bit platforms?
It does trigger on Linux. I guess the patch wasn't bootstrapped.
There is another problem
So, to be clear, this is for bootstrapping with a C++ compiler, right?
Honestly, didn't try that... It's definitely possible that there are
glitches in the tree wrt -Wnarrowing in C++.
Bootstrapping with the C++ compiler has been the default for months...
--
Eric Botcazou
On 10/23/2011 10:19 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
So, to be clear, this is for bootstrapping with a C++ compiler, right?
Honestly, didn't try that... It's definitely possible that there are
glitches in the tree wrt -Wnarrowing in C++.
Bootstrapping with the C++ compiler has been the default for
Oh my, I thought I was till using C here... Ok, I'll fix that.
The base compiler is a C compiler, stage 2/3 are built with the C++ compiler.
--
Eric Botcazou
On 10/23/2011 10:25 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Oh my, I thought I was till using C here... Ok, I'll fix that.
The base compiler is a C compiler, stage 2/3 are built with the C++ compiler.
Yes, yes. Sorry about this.
Anyway, the below appears to work for me. Eric shall I commit it?
Thanks,
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.
--
Eric
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] = {
On 10/23/2011 11:05 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Eric Botcazouebotca...@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 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 Botcazouebotca...@adacore.com
wrote:
Anyway, the below appears to work for me. Eric shall I commit it?
I have other errors
Hi,
Personally, I would be in favor of taking -Wc++0x-compat out of -Wall.
Patch pre-approved.
Thanks.
It makes sense though that -Wextra implies -Wc++0x-compat.
Indeed, it would. However, unfortunately, we are using -W to bootstrap
(it just failed on me). Thus I'm bootstrapping and testing
... and the patch ;)
Paolo.
/c-family
2011-10-23 Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com
PR c++/50810
* c-opts.c (c_common_handle_option): Do not enable -Wc++0x-compat
as part of -Wall; handle -Wc++0x-compat.
(c_common_post_options): -std=c++0x
Hi,
On 10/24/2011 03:30 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
We do not use -W or -Wno- to suppressed *required* diagnostics. So,
when -std=c++0x, -Wno-narrowing should not have any effect.
Personally, I have no problem with this, but note, I'm not inventing
anything new here, the behavior you are
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi,
On 10/24/2011 03:30 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
We do not use -W or -Wno- to suppressed *required* diagnostics. So, when
-std=c++0x, -Wno-narrowing should not have any effect.
Personally, I have no problem
On 10/24/2011 04:10 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Before the patch, -std=c++0x effectively put off -Wc++0x-compat
because we are compiling c++98/c++03 code, so we can only *warn* about
possible compatibility conflict with C++11. However, the narrowing
diagnostic required by C++11 is NOT a
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com wrote:
On 10/24/2011 04:10 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Before the patch, -std=c++0x effectively put off -Wc++0x-compat because we
are compiling c++98/c++03 code, so we can only *warn* about possible
compatibility conflict
17 matches
Mail list logo
