--- Comment #15 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-21 09:54 ---
This bug will be fixed as soon as Tom's patch goes in.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 22168 ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #14 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-12 17:22 ---
Tom,
your patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg01853.html
will also fix this by adding Wdeprecated to the C front-end.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-16 16:04 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Subject: Re: -Wno-deprecated needed also for C
>
> manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to remove the dead code? Or is there a policy against
> > touching thin
--- Comment #12 from hpa at zytor dot com 2007-01-27 01:40 ---
Subject: Re: -Wno-deprecated needed also for C
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be better to remove the dead code? Or is there a policy against
> touching things that are not broken? I think that at least
--- Comment #11 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-27 01:38 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Subject: Re: -Wno-deprecated needed also for C
>
> manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> >
> > But it doesn't produce that warning. Is that warning dead code or what?
> >
>
> Apparently
--- Comment #10 from hpa at zytor dot com 2007-01-27 01:09 ---
Subject: Re: -Wno-deprecated needed also for C
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> But it doesn't produce that warning. Is that warning dead code or what?
>
Apparently so. I think it should have stayed a warning, but
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-27 01:02 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Subject: Re: -Wno-deprecated needed also for C
>
> > manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> > > --- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 00:01
> > > ---
> > > The t
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2007-01-23 00:29
---
Subject: Re: -Wno-deprecated needed also for C
> manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> > --- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 00:01
> > ---
> > The testcase given is not valid any
> manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> > --- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 00:01
> > ---
> > The testcase given is not valid any more. Could you think in any other
> > testcase?
> >
> > In stmt.c (expand_asm_operands) there is:
> >
> > warning (0, "u
--- Comment #7 from hpa at zytor dot com 2007-01-23 00:24 ---
Subject: Re: -Wno-deprecated needed also for C
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 00:20 ---
> Hey, don't look at me. I am not sure what that means, I was
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 00:20 ---
Hey, don't look at me. I am not sure what that means, I was just looking for
something deprecated in C front-end to make a testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11051
--- Comment #5 from hpa at zytor dot com 2007-01-23 00:15 ---
Subject: Re: -Wno-deprecated needed also for C
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 00:01 ---
> The testcase given is not valid any more. Could you think in
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-23 00:01 ---
The testcase given is not valid any more. Could you think in any other
testcase?
In stmt.c (expand_asm_operands) there is:
warning (0, "use of memory input without lvalue in "
"asm o
13 matches
Mail list logo
