| Message ID | AANLkTimEXaWjIOlkUzkeSq_Knr_uSM0P1cn_h9qCknf-@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 07/14/2010 12:26 PM, Kai Tietz wrote: > Hi, > > ChangeLog > > 2010-07-14 Kai Tietz > > * method.c (synthesized_method_walk): Initialize > check_vdtor by false. > > Tested for i686-pc-linux-gnu, i686-pc-mingw32, and x86_64-pc-mingw32. > Ok for apply? > Frankly, I do not understand why you are proposing this change: at line 1007 check_vdtor is assigned false and there are no uses whatsoever before. Everything seems fine, and, by the way, the case of assign_p is quite similar. Are you seeing spurious warnings during the bootstrap? Paolo.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 01:52:20PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: > On 07/14/2010 12:26 PM, Kai Tietz wrote: > > 2010-07-14 Kai Tietz > > > > * method.c (synthesized_method_walk): Initialize > > check_vdtor by false. > > > > Tested for i686-pc-linux-gnu, i686-pc-mingw32, and x86_64-pc-mingw32. > > Ok for apply? > > > Frankly, I do not understand why you are proposing this change: at line > 1007 check_vdtor is assigned false and there are no uses whatsoever > before. Everything seems fine, and, by the way, the case of assign_p is > quite similar. Are you seeing spurious warnings during the bootstrap? That's because Jason fixed this yesterday: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162159 Before that it has been really uninitialized. Jakub
2010/7/14 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 01:52:20PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: >> On 07/14/2010 12:26 PM, Kai Tietz wrote: >> > 2010-07-14 Kai Tietz >> > >> > * method.c (synthesized_method_walk): Initialize >> > check_vdtor by false. >> > >> > Tested for i686-pc-linux-gnu, i686-pc-mingw32, and x86_64-pc-mingw32. >> > Ok for apply? >> > >> Frankly, I do not understand why you are proposing this change: at line >> 1007 check_vdtor is assigned false and there are no uses whatsoever >> before. Everything seems fine, and, by the way, the case of assign_p is >> quite similar. Are you seeing spurious warnings during the bootstrap? > > That's because Jason fixed this yesterday: > http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162159 > Before that it has been really uninitialized. > > Jakub > Ah, he did this patch already. Ok, so this patch is obsolete. I reported it yesterday to jason and wasn't sure if he already fixed it, so I posted it today. Kai
On 07/14/2010 08:14 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> Ah, he did this patch already.
Yep, sorry I didn't say I would take care of it. Thanks.
Jason
Index: method.c =================================================================== --- method.c (revision 162168) +++ method.c (working copy) @@ -941,7 +941,7 @@ bool diag) { tree binfo, base_binfo, field, scope, fnname, rval, argtype; - bool move_p, copy_arg_p, assign_p, expected_trivial, check_vdtor; + bool move_p, copy_arg_p, assign_p, expected_trivial, check_vdtor = false; VEC(tree,gc) *vbases; int i, quals, flags; tsubst_flags_t complain;
Hi, ChangeLog 2010-07-14 Kai Tietz * method.c (synthesized_method_walk): Initialize check_vdtor by false. Tested for i686-pc-linux-gnu, i686-pc-mingw32, and x86_64-pc-mingw32. Ok for apply? Regards, Kai