Andreas Schwab writes:
> Jason Merrill writes:
>
>> No, it's accepted by the C front end too, it just has no effect. It's
>> listed as a C option in c.opt. But during builds cc1 warns about it
>> sometimes and not others. It's very odd.
>
> $ gcc -Wno-narrowing -c hello.c
> $ gcc -Wno-narrow
Jason Merrill writes:
> No, it's accepted by the C front end too, it just has no effect. It's
> listed as a C option in c.opt. But during builds cc1 warns about it
> sometimes and not others. It's very odd.
$ gcc -Wno-narrowing -c hello.c
$ gcc -Wno-narrowing -c hello.c -Wall
hello.c:14:1: w
Hi,
> On 11/08/2011 03:22 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> I believe that the core issue is pretty clear: -Wno-narrowing disables a C++
>> only warning but somehow we are passing it also in a few C compiler
>> invocations, thus the driver warns.
>
> No, it's accepted by the C front end too, it just
On 11/08/2011 03:22 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
I believe that the core issue is pretty clear: -Wno-narrowing disables a C++
only warning but somehow we are passing it also in a few C compiler
invocations, thus the driver warns.
No, it's accepted by the C front end too, it just has no effect. I
Hi,
> I saw it on a native build, possibly netbsd, but I ignored it as I was
> in the middle of something. Will keep an eye out for it again.
I believe that the core issue is pretty clear: -Wno-narrowing disables a C++
only warning but somehow we are passing it also in a few C compiler
invocat
On 11/08/2011 03:08 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I saw it on a native build, possibly netbsd, but I ignored it as I was
in the middle of something. Will keep an eye out for it again.
I see it occasionally too, but haven't been able to reproduce it when
calling the compiler directly. Very odd.
On 8 November 2011 19:29, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 07:18:52AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Since recently, I am facing several of the warnings above when
>> building GCC-trunk cross for RTEMS targets.
>>
>> So far, not much clues about what is going on, except
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 07:18:52AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since recently, I am facing several of the warnings above when
> building GCC-trunk cross for RTEMS targets.
>
> So far, not much clues about what is going on, except that I see
> -Wno-narrowing were recently added to
> gcc
Jonathan Wakely wrote, On 26/09/11 09:57:
[.]
Feel free to request a new option in Bugzilla to suppress the note,
that's the right place for this discussion.
Good point. I've created a ticket:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50643
Regards, Jon
On 09/26/2011 05:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Andrew Haley writes:
>
>> On 09/19/2011 06:59 PM, Jon Grant wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I noticed that when compiling C files with GCC and using the -Werror
>>> option, I see this additional output:
>>>
>>> cc1.exe: warnings being treated as errors
>>> ./sr
Andrew Haley writes:
> On 09/19/2011 06:59 PM, Jon Grant wrote:
>
>>
>> I noticed that when compiling C files with GCC and using the -Werror
>> option, I see this additional output:
>>
>> cc1.exe: warnings being treated as errors
>> ./src/main.c: In function 'main':
>> ./src/main.c:41:15: error
On 09/19/2011 06:59 PM, Jon Grant wrote:
>
> I noticed that when compiling C files with GCC and using the -Werror
> option, I see this additional output:
>
> cc1.exe: warnings being treated as errors
> ./src/main.c: In function 'main':
> ./src/main.c:41:15: error: unused variable 'hello'
>
> Is
On 26 September 2011 09:33, Jon Grant wrote:
> For example: -Wall means I see "control reaches end of non-void function"
> messages, but doesn't output "cc1.exe: all warnings turned on"
But it does tell you which option that warning came from: [-Wreturn-type]
So if you want to disable it you can
Hi Jonathan
Jonathan Wakely wrote, On 24/09/11 15:55:
On 24 September 2011 15:40, Jon Grant wrote:
It's kind of re-iterating the command line options, that the user will
choose to be aware of already. I don't recall seeing that text output before
about ~1 year ago.
It was there in GCC 4.1, ma
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 03:55:10PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 24 September 2011 15:40, Jon Grant wrote:
> > It's kind of re-iterating the command line options, that the user will
> > choose to be aware of already. I don't recall seeing that text output before
> > about ~1 year ago.
>
> It
On 24 September 2011 15:40, Jon Grant wrote:
> It's kind of re-iterating the command line options, that the user will
> choose to be aware of already. I don't recall seeing that text output before
> about ~1 year ago.
It was there in GCC 4.1, maybe earlier, I didn't check.
> I'd thought because t
Jonathan Wakely wrote, On 19/09/11 19:40:
On 19 September 2011 18:59, Jon Grant wrote:
Hello
I noticed that when compiling C files with GCC and using the -Werror
option, I see this additional output:
cc1.exe: warnings being treated as errors
./src/main.c: In function 'main':
./src/main.c:41:15
On 19 September 2011 18:59, Jon Grant wrote:
> Hello
>
> I noticed that when compiling C files with GCC and using the -Werror
> option, I see this additional output:
>
> cc1.exe: warnings being treated as errors
> ./src/main.c: In function 'main':
> ./src/main.c:41:15: error: unused variable 'hello
On Feb 16, 2008 12:38 PM, Dasarath Weeratunge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I use cc1 directly it outputs a whole lot of text like:
> is there an option to surpress this?
-quiet .
-- Pinski
Ignore this - happens only when building HEAD with some local patches.
Richard.
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I get a strange ICE if building (not bootstrapping) mainline with
> current 3.4 branch with CFLAGS="-g":
>
> /tmp/gcc-obj-checking/gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/gcc-obj-checki
Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I get a strange ICE if building (not bootstrapping) mainline with
> current 3.4 branch with CFLAGS="-g":
>
> /tmp/gcc-obj-checking/gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/gcc-obj-checking/gcc/
> -B/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem
> /i686-pc-linux-gnu
21 matches
Mail list logo
