Hi,
For one reason or another, I have spent a fair amount of time reading
and getting confused by the warnings documentation. This applies to the
optimizations as well, but I thought I would start with the warnings.
Today I sat down and created a dependency graph for all of the options
in th
Chris Pickett wrote:
I have attached the graph. I am asking for one or more people to
comment on its correctness, and what I consider to be errors, as
indicated in comments.
I did this against 4.1.1. I just looked at the trunk invoke.texi, and I
see it has changed a bit, so just to be
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On 11/5/06, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would like to point out that the central point of my proposal was to
have the compilation manager be the process that manages if an
optimization is skipped or not rather than having each pass make a
decision on it's o
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Chris,
I see you have not received any response to this yet, so let me give
it a try.
Thanks! I unsubscribed from the list and was surprised to see this in
my inbox. Please continue to CC me on replies.
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Chris Pickett wrote:
5. Fix what I have
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 10 Jan 2007 05:47:19 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I assume the -Wno-xxx that are set by default would be moved to the
"default" section?
No. Warnings that are not active by
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > I assume the -Wno-xxx that are set by default would be moved to the
| > "default" section?
My guess is that there is a misunderstanding here.
| Warnings that are not active by default are obviously disabled,
Chris Pickett wrote:
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > I assume the -Wno-xxx that are set by default would be moved to the
| > "default" section?
If you meant something else in addition, can you give an example?
I'm not subscribed to the list and so I missed Tom's messa
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
5. Fix what I have labelled as errors.
That we definitely should do. I believe some things have been changed
in our current development tree (to become GCC 4.3) already. It would
be great could you have a look and perhaps produce a patch for one or
more of these; is thi
Chris Pickett wrote:
I have a question: does -Wextra now imply -Wconversion since
-Wconversion was split into -Wconversion and -Wtraditional-conversion?
I mistakenly thought it was under -Wextra. So the question should be,
does -Wtraditional now imply -Wtraditional-conversion since
