On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 01:08:22PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >> > @@ -10585,15 +10610,26 @@ cp_parser_statement (cp_parser* parser, tree
> >> > in_statement_expr,
> >> > }
> >> >/* Look for an expression-statement instea
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> > @@ -10585,15 +10610,26 @@ cp_parser_statement (cp_parser* parser, tree
>> > in_statement_expr,
>> > }
>> >/* Look for an expression-statement instead. */
>> >statement = cp_parser_expression_statement (parser,
>
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 07:38:18AM -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
> On 8/30/16, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 09:32:04AM -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
> >> I tried v6 on my binutils-gdb fork, and it printed A LOT of
> >> warnings...
> >
> > BTW, why is that so? Does binutils-gdb not
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 04:02:33PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > --- gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c
> > +++ gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c
> > @@ -5135,6 +5135,31 @@ cp_parser_primary_expression (cp_parser *parser,
> > case RID_AT_SELECTOR:
> >
On 8/30/16, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 09:32:04AM -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
>> I tried v6 on my binutils-gdb fork, and it printed A LOT of
>> warnings...
>
> BTW, why is that so? Does binutils-gdb not use various FALLTHRU comments?
>
> Marek
>
There are a lot of comm
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 09:32:04AM -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
> I tried v6 on my binutils-gdb fork, and it printed A LOT of
> warnings...
BTW, why is that so? Does binutils-gdb not use various FALLTHRU comments?
Marek
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> --- gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c
> +++ gcc/gcc/cp/parser.c
> @@ -5135,6 +5135,31 @@ cp_parser_primary_expression (cp_parser *parser,
> case RID_AT_SELECTOR:
> return cp_parser_objc_expression (parser);
>
> + case RID_ATTRIBUTE:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:41:57AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> Thanks. So presumably you have something like:
>
> ... case something:
> 353 if (*(unsigned int *)c->var == UINT_MAX)
> 354{
> 355
> 356/* various code here */
> 357}
> 358
> 359 case var_zi
On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 10:04 -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
> On 8/29/16, David Malcolm wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 09:32 -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
> > > On 8/29/16, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > Tobias tried my latest version and reported some ICEs. They
> > > > should
> > > > all be
> > > >
On 8/29/16, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 09:32 -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
>> On 8/29/16, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> > Tobias tried my latest version and reported some ICEs. They should
>> > all be
>> > fixed in this version (the only change since version 6 is the
>> > cp/pt.c
>> >
On Mon, 2016-08-29 at 09:32 -0400, Eric Gallager wrote:
> On 8/29/16, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Tobias tried my latest version and reported some ICEs. They should
> > all be
> > fixed in this version (the only change since version 6 is the
> > cp/pt.c
> > hunk).
> >
> > At this point I'd like to
On 8/29/16, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Tobias tried my latest version and reported some ICEs. They should all be
> fixed in this version (the only change since version 6 is the cp/pt.c
> hunk).
>
> At this point I'd like to ask Jason and Joseph to review the C/C++ parts
> and someone to review the ME
12 matches
Mail list logo
