On Mar 14, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Graham Stott wrote:
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.
The only reason why it is bogus is because well it is dead code :).
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 co
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfi
--- 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
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-14 14:31 ---
And I don't see why you using SIZEOF_UNSIGNED_INT as unsigned int does not come
in anywhere.
Now hashval_t does but that could be anything.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-14 14:29 ---
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.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
