From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29728 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2015 19:19:15 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 29717 invoked by uid 89); 10 Sep 2015 19:19:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: eu-smtp-delivery-143.mimecast.com Received: from eu-smtp-delivery-143.mimecast.com (HELO eu-smtp-delivery-143.mimecast.com) (146.101.78.143) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:19:13 +0000 Received: from cam-owa2.Emea.Arm.com (fw-tnat.cambridge.arm.com [217.140.96.140]) by eu-smtp-1.mimecast.com with ESMTP id uk-mta-31-9wv8_oaAQxu5TnwhTOLVkg-1; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:19:09 +0100 Received: from localhost ([10.1.2.79]) by cam-owa2.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:19:08 +0100 From: Richard Sandiford To: Jeff Law Mail-Followup-To: Jeff Law ,Rainer Orth , "gcc-patches\@gcc.gnu.org" , richard.sandiford@arm.com Cc: Rainer Orth , "gcc-patches\@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: Fix reload1.c warning for some targets References: <87d1z1kedx.fsf@e105548-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <55CB7F88.5040104@redhat.com> <87bnebc4or.fsf@googlemail.com> <87lhcn6gn4.fsf@e105548-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <55E9F965.8030401@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:33:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <55E9F965.8030401@redhat.com> (Jeff Law's message of "Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:04:53 +0100") Message-ID: <87h9n22ic3.fsf@e105548-lin.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MC-Unique: 9wv8_oaAQxu5TnwhTOLVkg-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg00722.txt.bz2 Jeff Law writes: > On 09/03/2015 02:39 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> so for now how about just turning -Wmaybe-uninitialized into >> a warning for this function? The patch will mean that it becomes >> a warning even if someone turns off warnings on the command line, >> but I don't think that's important. >> >> Bootstrapped and regression-tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. Also tested >> with a cross-compiler to sparc-linux-gnu (which also triggered the >> warning for me). Tested that clang could still compile the file. >> OK to install? >> >> >> gcc/ >> * reload1.c (elimination_costs_in_insn): Locally turn >> -Wmaybe-uninitialized into a warning. > I can live with this. Though I'd appreciate it if someone could reduce=20 > the sparcv9 testcase and create a bug to track it too. Applied, thanks. Richard