On 03/27/2017 08:29 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:16:32AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 07:41:12PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 07:33:05PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote:
The person developing the warning could *at least* have bootst
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:16:32AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 07:41:12PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 07:33:05PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote:
> > > On 03/27/2017 06:45 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 09:27:34AM -0700, S
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 07:59:01PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Am 27.03.2017 um 19:41 schrieb Marek Polacek:
>
> > Of course "the person" had bootstrapped and tested all the languages before
> > adding the warning. If only any of you bothered to check the fortran/
> > ChangeLogs:
>
> The probl
On 27 March 2017 at 18:59, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Am 27.03.2017 um 19:41 schrieb Marek Polacek:
>
>> Of course "the person" had bootstrapped and tested all the languages
>> before
>> adding the warning. If only any of you bothered to check the fortran/
>> ChangeLogs:
>
>
> The problem is with lib
On March 27, 2017 7:59:01 PM GMT+02:00, Thomas Koenig
wrote:
>Am 27.03.2017 um 19:41 schrieb Marek Polacek:
>
>> Of course "the person" had bootstrapped and tested all the languages
>before
>> adding the warning. If only any of you bothered to check the
>fortran/
>> ChangeLogs:
>
>The problem is
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 07:41:12PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 07:33:05PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote:
> > On 03/27/2017 06:45 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 09:27:34AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >
> > > > But that's okay. I now understand that
Am 27.03.2017 um 19:41 schrieb Marek Polacek:
Of course "the person" had bootstrapped and tested all the languages before
adding the warning. If only any of you bothered to check the fortran/
ChangeLogs:
The problem is with libfortran, which apparently was not tested
(or the problem would hav
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 07:33:05PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 03/27/2017 06:45 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 09:27:34AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> > > But that's okay. I now understand that it is acceptable for
> > > a developer to commit a change that causes issue
On 03/27/2017 06:45 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 09:27:34AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
But that's okay. I now understand that it is acceptable for
a developer to commit a change that causes issues for other
developers, and said developer can turn a blind eye.
Nonsense.
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 06:45:32PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 09:27:34AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 05:22:12PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > > On 2017.03.27 at 06:49 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Go scan the gcc-patches mail
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 09:27:34AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 05:22:12PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > On 2017.03.27 at 06:49 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > >
> > > Go scan the gcc-patches mailing list for "fallthrough". I'll
> > > note other have concerns. Here's
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 05:22:12PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2017.03.27 at 06:49 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >
> > Go scan the gcc-patches mailing list for "fallthrough". I'll
> > note other have concerns. Here's one example:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00
On 2017.03.27 at 06:49 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:36:27PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 27 March 2017 at 14:26, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > I completely disagree with your viewpoint here. If someone turns
> > > on a silly warning, that someone should fix all places
On 27 March 2017 at 14:49, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:36:27PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 27 March 2017 at 14:26, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> > I completely disagree with your viewpoint here. If someone turns
>> > on a silly warning, that someone should fix all places within
On 27 March 2017 at 14:49, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:36:27PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 27 March 2017 at 14:26, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> > I completely disagree with your viewpoint here. If someone turns
>> > on a silly warning, that someone should fix all places within
On 2017.03.27 at 07:44 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 03:39:37PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> >
> > Well, a missing break is a bug. No?
>
> Every 'case' statement without exception must be accompanied by
> a 'break' statement? Wasting others' time to "fix" working
> c
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:18:17PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> > > If he added a new option affecting libgfortran, then he should
> > > fix up libgfortran.
> >
> > He didn't add the warning to specifically annoy fortran developers.
> > It is trivial to add seven gcc_fallthrough() or breaks
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 03:39:37PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>
> Well, a missing break is a bug. No?
Every 'case' statement without exception must be accompanied by
a 'break' statement? Wasting others' time to "fix" working
correct code is acceptable?
--
Steve
20161221 https://www.yout
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:36:27PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 27 March 2017 at 14:26, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > I completely disagree with your viewpoint here. If someone turns
> > on a silly warning, that someone should fix all places within the
> > tree that triggers that warning. There is
On 2017.03.27 at 06:26 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 08:58:43AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > On 2017.03.26 at 19:30 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 06:45:07PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> > > > On 03/26/2017 11:45 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > >
On 27 March 2017 at 14:26, Steve Kargl wrote:
> I completely disagree with your viewpoint here. If someone turns
> on a silly warning, that someone should fix all places within the
> tree that triggers that warning. There is ZERO value to this warning,
> but added work for others to clean up that
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 08:58:43AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2017.03.26 at 19:30 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 06:45:07PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> > > On 03/26/2017 11:45 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 11:27:59AM -0700, Jerry DeLisle
> > If he added a new option affecting libgfortran, then he should
> > fix up libgfortran.
>
> He didn't add the warning to specifically annoy fortran developers.
> It is trivial to add seven gcc_fallthrough() or breaks for someone who
> knows the code and the person who added the warning obviously
On 2017.03.26 at 19:30 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 06:45:07PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> > On 03/26/2017 11:45 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 11:27:59AM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +#pragma GCC diagnostic push
> > >> +#pragma GCC diagno
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 06:45:07PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> On 03/26/2017 11:45 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 11:27:59AM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> >>
> >> +#pragma GCC diagnostic push
> >> +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wimplicit-fallthrough"
> >
> > IMNSHO, the co
On 03/26/2017 11:45 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 11:27:59AM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
>>
>> +#pragma GCC diagnostic push
>> +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wimplicit-fallthrough"
>
> IMNSHO, the correct fix is to complain loudly to whomever
> added -Wimplicit-fallthrough to
26 matches
Mail list logo
