[wwwdocs] gcc-4.6/porting_to.html

Submitter	Gerald Pfeifer
Date	Oct. 24, 2011, 12:59 a.m.
Message ID	<alpine.LNX.2.00.1110240256000.3090@gerinyyl.fvgr>
Download	mbox \| patch
Permalink	/patch/121262/
State	New
Headers	show Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-305335-incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@gcc.gnu.org> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 02:59:10 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> To: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] gcc-4.6/porting_to.html In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1110102230240.4588@gerinyyl.fvgr> Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1110240256000.3090@gerinyyl.fvgr> References: <20110316235130.1f44d808@shotwell> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1110102230240.4588@gerinyyl.fvgr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org

Comments

Gerald Pfeifer - Oct. 24, 2011, 12:59 a.m.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> I realized this one hasn't made it in, but is really nice.  I made a 
> number of minor edits (typos, markup, simplifying headings,... among 
> others).  What do you think -- should we include this?

Checking mailing list archives I realized that Jakub had provided
feedback ( http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00987.html )
that the strict overflow warnings had been fixed.

Hence I went ahead and committed the removal below.

Gerald

Patch

Index: porting_to.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.6/porting_to.html,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -r1.3 porting_to.html
--- porting_to.html	12 Oct 2011 16:16:54 -0000	1.3
+++ porting_to.html	24 Oct 2011 00:52:53 -0000
@@ -65,24 +65,6 @@ 
 <code>-Wno-unused-but-set-variable</code> or
 <code>-Wno-unused-but-set-parameter</code>.</p>
 
-<h3>Strict overflow warnings</h3>
-
-<p>Using the <code>-Wstrict-overflow</code> flag with
-<code>-Werror</code> and optmization flags above <code>-O2</code>
-may result in compile errors when using glibc optimizations
-for <code>strcmp</code>.</p>
-
-<p>For example,</p>
-<pre>
-#include &lt;string.h&gt;
-void do_rm_rf (const char *p) { if (strcmp (p, "/") == 0) return; }
-</pre>
-<p>Results in the following diagnostic:</p>
-<pre>
-error: assuming signed overflow does not occur when changing X +- C1 cmp C2 to X cmp C1 +- C2 [-Werror=strict-overflow]
-</pre>
-
-<p>To work around this, use <code>-D__NO_STRING_INLINES</code>.</p>
 
 <h2>C++ language issues</h2>
 
@@ -139,11 +121,6 @@ 
 to fix build failures with new GCC versions</a>
 </p>
 
-<p>
-Jim Meyering,
- <a href="http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-March/149355.html">gcc-4.6.0-0.12.fc15.x86_64 breaks strcmp?</a>
-</p>
-
 </body>
 </html>

Patchwork [wwwdocs] gcc-4.6/porting_to.html

Comments

Patch