This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
> Your test2() function finds a real bug, but there's already > a record in bugzilla about it; I found it by searching for > Wunreachable-code. Here's the record: > http://gcc.gnu.org/PR8828 > It says it's fixed in gcc-3.2 and later; sure enough, > in gcc-3.2.3 on my Debian system, it's fixed. > I don't see any regression tests in gcc's testsuite for this yet, > so I whipped one up by simplifying your testcase to the bone, > and posted it. It's at > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-09/msg01880.html > > and perhaps it will make it into the gcc tree. > - Dan > Many thanks. The older record has some interesting explanations of how switch code is re-organized for efficiency. It's more important that the generated code is good - I can cope with superfluous warnings, and one day (when I have time :-) I will start using a lint program properly. But if the gcc wizards can get good code and good warnings, then that's the best of both worlds. David ------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |