https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26061
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
--- Comment #20 from hyperquantum at gmail dot com 2008-07-21 11:32 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> I really don't want to make it default off as it's really useful. I hope to
> fix
> the patch and make it default on for gcc 4.4 at least.
I agree. What's the status for getting it into
--- Comment #19 from ismail at pardus dot org dot tr 2007-12-16 16:55
---
Hi,
(In reply to comment #18)
> * My original patch modified several testsuite files:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01190.html, I guess you would
> need
> something equivalent.
I added a flag t
--- Comment #18 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-16 16:51 ---
Ismail,
I am pretty sure that this won't be accepted for GCC 4.3, since it is not a
regression fix. Actually, I am unsure it would be accepted at all following the
comments to my original patch.
Nevertheless, if you
--- Comment #17 from ismail at pardus dot org dot tr 2007-12-16 16:14
---
Created an attachment (id=14781)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14781&action=view)
Fix typo in the last patch
--
ismail at pardus dot org dot tr changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #16 from ismail at pardus dot org dot tr 2007-12-16 16:12
---
Created an attachment (id=14780)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14780&action=view)
Unbreak lib{gomp,stdc++,ffi} tests
--
ismail at pardus dot org dot tr changed:
What|Remov
--- Comment #15 from ismail at pardus dot org dot tr 2007-12-15 22:06
---
Attached is a better patch which adds -f{no}-show-error-count and uses it in
regression tests so regtests works now. IDE's also can use this option.
Is it possible to get this in for gcc 4.3 or gcc 4.4?
--
h
--- Comment #14 from ismail at pardus dot org dot tr 2007-12-15 22:05
---
Created an attachment (id=14769)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14769&action=view)
Better patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26061
--- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-03 09:03 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> [Here's what I sent to gcc-patches as a review of this patch:]
> Doing this will certainly break many tools which parse the output of GCC,
In the same way that adding any other output messa
--- Comment #12 from geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-03 00:45 ---
[Here's what I sent to gcc-patches as a review of this patch:]
Doing this will certainly break many tools which parse the output of GCC,
especially in the case of a successful compilation which produced some
warnings
--- Comment #11 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-02-14 05:26 ---
Subject: Bug number PR26061
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01190.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-28 17:17 ---
I have a patch bootstrapped and regression tested that implements my version
but I am sure it will require minimal changes to implement whatever is decided.
So if you don't get an answer here, please raise the issue at
--- Comment #9 from ismail at pardus dot org dot tr 2007-01-26 23:29
---
There should also be a newline,
--- gcc/toplev.c2006-10-09 19:27:14.0 +0300
+++ gcc/toplev.c2007-01-26 20:59:19.395519510 +0200
@@ -1975,6 +1975,12 @@
/* Language-specific end of compil
--- Comment #8 from hyperquantum at gmail dot com 2007-01-26 23:18 ---
I prefer the second version. The output is only useful in case there are errors
or warnings, not when you have a flawless compilation.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26061
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-26 21:59 ---
Whatever version is fine for me. Gabriel, any preference?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26061
--- Comment #6 from ismail at pardus dot org dot tr 2007-01-26 21:29
---
Maybe a better version could be like this,
--- gcc/toplev.c2006-10-09 19:27:14.0 +0300
+++ gcc/toplev.c2007-01-26 20:59:19.395519510 +0200
@@ -1975,6 +1975,12 @@
/* Language-specific en
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-21 23:35 ---
Gabriel, what do you think about this? Does it need testcases? Should I submit
it?
Index: gcc/toplev.c
===
--- gcc/toplev.c(revision 121027)
+++
--- Comment #4 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-02-02 15:12
---
Subject: Re: error and warning count
"pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > IMO this is a useful feature because the number of lines of error output
that
| > GCC produces for a f
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-02 14:42 ---
Subject: Re: error and warning count
>
>
>
> --- Comment #2 from hyperquantum at gmail dot com 2006-02-02 14:39
> ---
> IMO this is a useful feature because the number of lines of error output that
> G
>
>
>
> --- Comment #2 from hyperquantum at gmail dot com 2006-02-02 14:39
> ---
> IMO this is a useful feature because the number of lines of error output that
> GCC produces for a file is not (always) a correct measure for the amount of
> errors and warnings produced for that file. T
--- Comment #2 from hyperquantum at gmail dot com 2006-02-02 14:39 ---
IMO this is a useful feature because the number of lines of error output that
GCC produces for a file is not (always) a correct measure for the amount of
errors and warnings produced for that file. This is because GCC
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-01 12:49 ---
Confirmed, I really don't know if this is useful or not.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
22 matches
Mail list logo
