From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-17650-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 17212 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2002 16:36:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 17198 invoked by uid 71); 22 Apr 2002 16:36:01 -0000
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 09:36:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20020422163601.17197.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: optimization/6330: tiny C++ prog broken under -O1
Reply-To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01113.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR optimization/6330; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
To: David Hanney <dh@digitalbrain.com>
Cc: rth@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
   nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: optimization/6330: tiny C++ prog broken under -O1
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 09:34:33 -0700

 On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 10:02:00AM +0100, David Hanney wrote:
 > .. would a compiler warning be useful here?
 
 Yes.  There's already an open PR about this.
 
 
 r~