Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > See -Walways-true.
|
| gcc-4.1.0-0.20051206r108118 doesn't know this option.
| Is it newer or in some unofficial patch?
GCC-4.2.0.
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html#i
>
> Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well this warning just found a bug in GCC's code where we had an enum and
> > that enum was stored in a bitfield but the bitfield did not span the
> > whole enum so we get this warning.
>
> Couldn't this be detected when the enum is stored in t
Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well this warning just found a bug in GCC's code where we had an enum and
> that enum was stored in a bitfield but the bitfield did not span the
> whole enum so we get this warning.
Couldn't this be detected when the enum is stored in the bitfield?
> S
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hello.
|
| There was a discussion about this warning about a year ago, but it
| seems to have been forgotten without a resolution.
|
| This warning is issued unconditionally, impossible to disable, hard
| to work around, and it depends on i
>
> Hello.
>
> There was a discussion about this warning about a year ago, but it
> seems to have been forgotten without a resolution.
>
> This warning is issued unconditionally, impossible to disable, hard
> to work around, and it depends on integer sizes even when the code
> is portable.
Well
Hello.
There was a discussion about this warning about a year ago, but it
seems to have been forgotten without a resolution.
This warning is issued unconditionally, impossible to disable, hard
to work around, and it depends on integer sizes even when the code
is portable.
I think it should be re
