On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> Please put the "as it would" parts of the changelog entries as
> comments in the code instead. (ChangeLog says "what", not "why".)
>
> I'd also tweak the head comment of warn_portable_volatility_p
> (like the documentation change) to not refer to
> -
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> H-P: I hope you can approve my little patch for trunk now,
> although it turned out to be less trivial than I'd have expected.
Sorry, I'm not an approver. (People who are not approvers are
welcome to review any gcc patch where they might say something
Hello Hans-Peter,
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2013, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Hi Sandra,
>>
>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2013, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote
>>> Or - maybe more acceptable - an optional warning, say
>>> -Wportable-volatility, to warn about code for which separate
>>> incompatbile definitions on different platf
On Sat, 13 Jul 2013, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi Sandra,
>
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2013, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote
> > Or - maybe more acceptable - an optional warning, say
> > -Wportable-volatility, to warn about code for which separate
> > incompatbile definitions on different platforms (or between C
> > a
Hi Sandra,
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote
> Or - maybe more acceptable - an optional warning, say
> -Wportable-volatility, to warn about code for which separate
> incompatbile definitions on different platforms (or between C
> and C++) exist even within gcc. It would be usable for d
