Message ID | 20122.49140.381473.924718@pilspetsen.it.uu.se |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On Oct 16, 2011, at 4:28 AM, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > This fixes a bootstrap failure on trunk with objc enabled > Ok for trunk? Ok.
> (I don't have svn write access so I'll need someone else to commit it if > it's approved.) I can apply it for you. But ... do you have a copyright assignment in place for contributions to GCC ? The patch looks small and trivial enough that I think I can apply it without a signed copyright assignment form, but if you plan on contributing more, it would make sense to sign one. :-) Thanks
Nicola Pero writes: > > (I don't have svn write access so I'll need someone else to commit it if > > it's approved.) > > I can apply it for you. But ... do you have a copyright assignment in place > for contributions to GCC ? The patch looks small and trivial enough that > I think I can apply it without a signed copyright assignment form, but if you > plan on contributing more, it would make sense to sign one. :-) The FSF has had my papers since Feb '11, but are stalling trying to decide whether to accept my employer's slightly non-standard disclaimer or not. I'd rather not spam gcc-patches by attaching the GPLv3 COPYING to every patch submission, but I can do so if necessary. (E.g., a copy of the patch inline for reviewability, an attachment with a compressed tarball containing the patch, COPYING, and a README linking the two.)
> The FSF has had my papers since Feb '11, but are stalling trying to decide > whether to accept my employer's slightly non-standard disclaimer or not. Ah. That seems a long time even for this kind of things. Anyhow, this particular patch consisted of exactly 4 casts, so it seems to fall in the case of a "tiny patch" which doesn't require copyright assignment, so I applied it for you. Thanks
--- gcc-4.7-20111015/gcc/objc/objc-act.c.~1~ 2011-10-14 12:19:01.000000000 +0200 +++ gcc-4.7-20111015/gcc/objc/objc-act.c 2011-10-16 11:53:56.000000000 +0200 @@ -5070,7 +5070,7 @@ check_duplicates (tree method, int metho alignment. */ if (!warn_strict_selector_match) { - for (i = 0; i < TREE_VEC_LENGTH (method); i++) + for (i = 0; i < (size_t) TREE_VEC_LENGTH (method); i++) if (!comp_proto_with_proto (first_method, TREE_VEC_ELT (method, i), 0)) goto issue_warning; @@ -5103,7 +5103,7 @@ check_duplicates (tree method, int metho identifier_to_locale (gen_method_decl (first_method))); } - for (i = 0; i < TREE_VEC_LENGTH (method); i++) + for (i = 0; i < (size_t) TREE_VEC_LENGTH (method); i++) { bool type = TREE_CODE (TREE_VEC_ELT (method, i)) == INSTANCE_METHOD_DECL; @@ -5825,7 +5825,7 @@ insert_method_into_method_map (bool clas /* Check all the existing prototypes. If any matches the one we need to add, there is nothing to do because it's already there. */ - for (i = 0; i < TREE_VEC_LENGTH (existing_entry); i++) + for (i = 0; i < (size_t) TREE_VEC_LENGTH (existing_entry); i++) if (comp_proto_with_proto (method, TREE_VEC_ELT (existing_entry, i), 1)) return; @@ -5837,7 +5837,7 @@ insert_method_into_method_map (bool clas new_entry = make_tree_vec (TREE_VEC_LENGTH (existing_entry) + 1); /* Copy the methods from the existing vector. */ - for (i = 0; i < TREE_VEC_LENGTH (existing_entry); i++) + for (i = 0; i < (size_t) TREE_VEC_LENGTH (existing_entry); i++) TREE_VEC_ELT (new_entry, i) = TREE_VEC_ELT (existing_entry, i); /* Add the new method at the end. */