From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17281 invoked by alias); 31 Aug 2004 20:37:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 17129 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2004 20:37:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lon-mail-2.gradwell.net) (193.111.201.126) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 31 Aug 2004 20:37:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 63503 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2004 20:37:22 -0000 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (postmaster%pop3.polyomino.org.uk@81.187.227.50) by lon-mail-2.gradwell.net with SMTP; 31 Aug 2004 20:37:22 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1C2FNa-0001wN-3h; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:37:22 +0000 Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:56:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" X-X-Sender: jsm28@digraph.polyomino.org.uk To: Richard Henderson cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Undefined static functions In-Reply-To: <20040831203323.GA8419@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20040831050123.GA4683@redhat.com> <20040831203323.GA8419@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg01674.txt.bz2 On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Richard Henderson wrote: > > ... defining TREE_NO_WARNING to apply > > to decls as well as expressions looks safer. > > TREE_NO_WARNING *does* apply to decls. See warn_uninit in tree-ssa.c. So the documentation in tree.h of nowarning_flag: TREE_NO_WARNING in ... any expr node and /* In an expr node (usually a conversion) this means the node was made implicitly and should not lead to any sort of warning. */ needs updating to reflect this. -- Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/ http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/#c90status - status of C90 for GCC 3.5 jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail) jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)