Re: Signed overflow patches OK for 4.2?

4 msg	Static Chain Argument in call_expr
1 msg	MODIFY_EXPR lhs
5 msg	Libiberty functions
13 msg	Looking for specific pages from Muchnick's book
1 msg	gcc-4.2-20070307 is now available
6 msg	Detemining the size of int_fast8_t etc. in the ...
5 msg	Apple's Objective-C 2.0 extensions
1 msg	libg2c.a missing in 4.1.1
1 msg	Continuous run-time adaptation and optimization...
1 msg	GCC Interactive Compilation Interface development
3 msg	build broken
1 msg	Doxygen documentation nearly unreadable
5 msg	BUG: wrong function call
21 msg	Adding a new gcc dir
3 msg	Mainline bug in RTL fwprop.
1 msg	gcc-4.1-20070305 is now available
4 msg	gcc and gmp/mpfr - order of build

Signed overflow patches OK for 4.2?
\ Ian Lance Taylor (5 Mar 2007)
. \ Andrew Pinski (5 Mar 2007)
. . \ Ian Lance Taylor (5 Mar 2007)
. . . \ Andrew Pinski (5 Mar 2007)
. . . . \ Eric Botcazou (5 Mar 2007)
. . . . . \ Diego Novillo (5 Mar 2007)
. . . . . . \ Ian Lance Taylor (5 Mar 2007)
. . . . . . . \ Diego Novillo (5 Mar 2007)
. . . . . . . . \ Mark Mitchell (5 Mar 2007)

1 msg	question about PASSES
7 msg	subreg pass

Subject:	Re: Signed overflow patches OK for 4.2?
Group:	Gcc
From:	Mark Mitchell
Date:	5 Mar 2007

Diego Novillo wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 03/05/07 18:23:
>
>> I gather you are saying here that it is OK with you to backport
>> -fstrict-overflow/-Wstrict-overflow to 4.2.

It is OK with with me to backport the changes, even though this is
clearly late in the cycle. None of the choices are particularly pretty.

Ian, please do the backport and check in the changes as soon as you can.

Thanks,

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark
(650) 331-3385 x713