From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-305324-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25237 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2011 21:30:52 -0000
Received: (qmail 25228 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Oct 2011 21:30:51 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com (HELO rcsinet15.oracle.com) (148.87.113.117)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 21:30:37 +0000
Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94])	by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p9NLUMtY012056	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);	Sun, 23 Oct 2011 21:30:24 GMT
Received: from acsmt356.oracle.com (acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156])	by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9NLUL0K002305	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);	Sun, 23 Oct 2011 21:30:21 GMT
Received: from abhmt113.oracle.com (abhmt113.oracle.com [141.146.116.65])	by acsmt356.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p9NLUF9Y003955;	Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:30:15 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.4] (/79.53.13.126)	by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0)	with ESMTP ; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:30:15 -0700
Message-ID: <4EA48705.8030303@oracle.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 22:31:00 -0000
From: Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
CC: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,        Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Bootstrap failure in tree-object-size.c due to -Wnarrowing (was: [C++ Patch] PR 50810)
References: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1110232129320.3090@gerinyyl.fvgr> <201110232225.07949.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <4EA47B66.8030707@oracle.com> <201110232245.08092.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <CAAiZkiAB6tAXc=BbA22TX7mst1s+ZHc=LbkOMMG76cDjqP0QJw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAiZkiAB6tAXc=BbA22TX7mst1s+ZHc=LbkOMMG76cDjqP0QJw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
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: 2011-10/txt/msg02122.txt.bz2

On 10/23/2011 11:05 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Eric Botcazou<ebotcazou@adacore.com>  wrote:
>>> Anyway, the below appears to work for me. Eric shall I commit it?
>> I have other errors for config/i386/i386.c on my x86-64 machine.  But are we
>> sure that we want to warn on
>>
>> static unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT unknown[4] = { -1, -1, 0, 0 };
>>
>> with -Wall?  This seems overly picky to me.
>>
> The warning probably should not be in -Wall.  It is fairly recent in C++, and I
> think we should allow users to adapt before enabling it by default.
The issue is that we wanted -Wconversion to be enabled by -Wc++0x-compat 
(after all, it's what the PR asks) but the latter is *already* in -Wall.

Personally, I would be in favor of taking -Wc++0x-compat out of -Wall.

Paolo.