From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6979 invoked by alias); 12 Jul 2011 20:56:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 6970 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jul 2011 20:56:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO mel.act-europe.fr) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 20:55:53 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9460CB029F; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:55:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AnrRC+A4e4mC; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:55:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (bon31-9-83-155-120-49.fbx.proxad.net [83.155.120.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mel.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88A1ACB02BA; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:55:25 +0200 (CEST) From: Eric Botcazou To: Richard Henderson Subject: Re: Fix warnings in build with G++ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 21:08:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <201107122207.19836.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <4E1CB012.70207@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4E1CB012.70207@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201107122255.01565.ebotcazou@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-07/txt/msg00964.txt.bz2 > FWIW, elsewhere in gcc we use "continue;" for empty loop bodies. I think I've never run into this idiom in about a decade of work on GCC. :-) Sometimes there is a comment after the ; on the line, but this is somewhat redundant IMO. Maybe we should simply ban loops with emtpy bodies. -- Eric Botcazou