On 2/13/2016 8:00 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
Fair enough. Committing what we can right now sounds like a good plan.
Attached is the doc patch, minus the proposed warning.
ChangeLog:
2016-02-19 David Wohlferd
Bernd Schmidt
* doc/extend.texi: Doc basic asm behavior re clobbers
On 2/12/2016 5:03 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 02/12/2016 05:51 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 02/12/2016 08:05 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
Actually, it was my intent that this apply to v6. It's not like there
is a significant change here. We're documenting long-time behavior,
and
adding a (di
On 2/12/2016 4:51 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 02/12/2016 08:05 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
Actually, it was my intent that this apply to v6. It's not like there
is a significant change here. We're documenting long-time behavior, and
adding a (disabled) warning.
The doc patch (minus mentioning
On 02/12/2016 05:51 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 02/12/2016 08:05 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
Actually, it was my intent that this apply to v6. It's not like there
is a significant change here. We're documenting long-time behavior, and
adding a (disabled) warning.
The doc patch (minus mentionin
On 02/12/2016 08:05 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
Actually, it was my intent that this apply to v6. It's not like there
is a significant change here. We're documenting long-time behavior, and
adding a (disabled) warning.
The doc patch (minus mentioning the warning) could go in now, but for
gcc-6
On 2/11/2016 8:03 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 02/11/2016 08:40 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
But again, if someone feels the docs patch as posted is preferrable, go
ahead and approve it (for stage1 I assume).
TBH, I haven't looked at the documentation patch at all; I've been
ignoring this issu
I don't think this is a patch we're considering for gcc-6, at least
not for the initial release - I imagine it could be backported from
gcc-7 at some point.
Actually, it was my intent that this apply to v6. It's not like there
is a significant change here. We're documenting long-time behav
On 02/11/2016 08:40 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
But again, if someone feels the docs patch as posted is preferrable, go
ahead and approve it (for stage1 I assume).
TBH, I haven't looked at the documentation patch at all; I've been
ignoring this issue because (a) I thought the technical details w
On 02/11/2016 12:49 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
I believe the attached patch addresses all the other outstanding comments.
Bernd Edlinger made some thorough comments; I'll just add a few more. I
don't think this is a patch we're considering for gcc-6, at least not
for the initial release - I im
Since no one expressed any objections, I have renamed the option from
-Wonly-top-basic-asm to -Wbasic-asm-in-function. This more clearly
conveys what the option does (give a warning if you find basic asm in a
function).
I believe the attached patch addresses all the other outstanding comments
On 2/7/2016 10:45 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 8. 2. 2016 04:45, David Wohlferd wrote:
I replied with a patch that includes most of the changes you asked for
(see inline below). Were you waiting on me for something more?
ChangeLog entries are still missing.
I'll add them back in the next pos
11 matches
Mail list logo
