------- Comment #6 from graham dot stott at btinternet dot com 2006-03-14 18:55 ------- Subject: Re: boostrap failure due to warning in gcc/varasm.c
All, If the warning isn't bogus then we probably need to do the shift in two steps (i.e. hwi = (hwi >> (shift - 1)) >> 1) as done elsewhere to avoid the potential warning. --- joseph at codesourcery dot com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ------- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-03-14 15:11 > ------- > Subject: Re: boostrap failure due to warning in > gcc/varasm.c > > On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > > What compiler are you using to get that warning? > > There should be no warning as shift is a variable and n is a variable and > > should be zero. > > shift is a const variable initialized with a constant, so when building > with optimization (this is the stage1 compiler building the stage2 > compiler) it gets replaced by its value. Because the warning is given > before dead code elimination, the fact that n is also a constant and the > code is unreachable is irrelevant. Why this error is newly appeared I'm > not sure. > > > -- > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26679 > > -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26679
