From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-186289-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20177 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2007 18:02:07 -0000
Received: (qmail 20165 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2007 18:02:04 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from eyesopen.com (HELO mail.eyesopen.com) (208.41.78.163)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:01:59 +0000
Received: from mail.eyesopen.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) 	by mail.eyesopen.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F420219; 	Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:01:55 -0700 (MST)
Received: from 208.41.78.162         (SquirrelMail authenticated user roger)         by mail.eyesopen.com with HTTP;         Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:01:56 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <1535.208.41.78.162.1168970516.squirrel@mail.eyesopen.com>
In-Reply-To: <200701161708.19584.dmuell@gmx.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0701130958480.27791-100000@www.eyesopen.com>     <6c33472e0701160714w78a53d2ew91714131c0d25212@mail.gmail.com>     <Pine.GSO.4.58.0701160952210.10586@sun>     <200701161708.19584.dmuell@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:02:00 -0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR/8268: implement compile time array subscript        checking
From: "Roger Sayle" <roger@eyesopen.com>
To: "Dirk Mueller" <dmuell@gmx.net>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,  "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr@cs.tamu.edu>,  Manuel =?iso-8859-1?Q?L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez?= <lopezibanez@gmail.com>,  "Richard Guenther" <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8-2.el4.centos4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg01349.txt.bz2


Hi Dirk,

On Tue, January 16, 2007 9:08 am, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> Attached for reference, regtest in progress. Is the patch OK if it passes?

Sure, this is OK for mainline.  Many thanks for addressing the issues, I
appreciate that it can be tedious jumping through all of the required
hoops.  If other recent warning patches are anything to go by, I suspect
there'll be enough feedback to decide whether we need to tweak the
conditions under which issue warnings (-Wall vs. default vs -O1 etc..)

Many thanks again to you and Richard for tackling this.

Roger
--