From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31814 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2009 18:25:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 31806 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Oct 2009 18:25:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:25:53 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n9AIPfEC024817; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:25:41 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n9AIPegI014046; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:25:41 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n9AIPdlI030965; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:25:39 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id BCBA4378212; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:25:38 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb@sourceware.org, dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com, msnyder@vmware.com Subject: Re: A strange gcc behavior, and an argument against -Wno-unused References: <4ACFD8B7.4090902@vmware.com> <4ACFF3C7.3030802@gmail.com> <200910101745.27358.pedro@codesourcery.com> <83iqenjf1f.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:25:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <83iqenjf1f.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:10:36 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00194.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii writes: >> > Or append "-Wunused-value"? >> >> Sounds like a good first step to me. Eli> What version of GCC introduced this switch? It seems to have been added here: Wed May 17 17:27:44 2000 Andrew Cagney * flags.h (warn_unused_function, warn_unused_label, warn_unused_parameter, warn_unused_variable, warn_unused_value): Replace ``warn_unused''. (set_Wunused): Add declaration. [...] That would put it in 3.0 and maybe 2.95.3. Tom