Kito Cheng writes:
> Yes, I know it's non-fatal warning, but I think gcc should build with
> --enable-werror-always by it's self
> and it's the *ONLY* warning in trunk now.
Yeah, but it should only build with --enable-werror-always if your host
compiler is the same version as the one you're build
On 07/08/2015 09:25 PM, Kito Cheng wrote:
Hi Jeff:
Thanks your review and approve, however I don't have commit right yet,
can you help me to commit it :)
Committed to the trunk.
jeff
Hi Jeff:
Thanks your review and approve, however I don't have commit right yet,
can you help me to commit it :)
thanks
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/08/2015 02:49 AM, Kito Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Bootstrapped & regression-tested on x86_64-linux-gnu :)
>>
>> 2015-07-08 Kito
On 07/08/2015 02:49 AM, Kito Cheng wrote:
Bootstrapped & regression-tested on x86_64-linux-gnu :)
2015-07-08 Kito Cheng
* function.c (stack_protect_epilogue): Use if rather than switch for
check targetm.have_stack_protect_test().
OK. Not necessarily because avoid the warn
Hi Marek:
Yes, I know it's non-fatal warning, but I think gcc should build with
--enable-werror-always by it's self
and it's the *ONLY* warning in trunk now.
Of cause, cast to int can suppress the warning,
but it's not good solution so gcc complain that switch condition has
bool type :)
On Wed,
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 04:49:19PM +0800, Kito Cheng wrote:
> Bootstrapped & regression-tested on x86_64-linux-gnu :)
>
> 2015-07-08 Kito Cheng
>
> * function.c (stack_protect_epilogue): Use if rather than switch for
> check targetm.have_stack_protect_test().
Do you really nee
heng
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:20:01 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] Drop -Wswitch-bool warning in function.c
---
gcc/function.c | 20 ++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/function.c b/gcc/function.c
index 972cdc8..b87aef6 100644
--- a/gcc/function.c
+++ b
