[Bug other/58944] [4.9 Regression] bogus -Wunused-macros warnings when compiling Libreoffice
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58944 Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||davidxl at google dot com --- Comment #4 from Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com --- This patch seems to solve the problem Index: config/i386/i386.c === --- config/i386/i386.c(revision 204298) +++ config/i386/i386.c(working copy) @@ -4634,6 +4634,8 @@ be set. */ cl_target_option_restore (func_options, TREE_TARGET_OPTION (target_option_default_node)); + func_options.x_ix86_arch_string = ix86_arch_string; + func_options.x_ix86_tune_string = ix86_tune_string; new_target = ix86_valid_target_attribute_tree (args, func_options, global_options_set); cl_target_option_restore does not touch ix86_arch_string and ix86_tune_string. This has to be managed explicitly. I am testing this patch now. Thanks, Sri
[Bug other/58944] [4.9 Regression] bogus -Wunused-macros warnings when compiling Libreoffice
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58944 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Looks like a system_header check doesn't work anymore.
[Bug other/58944] [4.9 Regression] bogus -Wunused-macros warnings when compiling Libreoffice
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58944 Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tmsriram at google dot com --- Comment #3 from Sriraman Tallam tmsriram at google dot com --- (In reply to octoploid from comment #1) Started with r203634. I am able to reproduce the problem though I get the bogus warning: test.cc:4:24: warning: macro __corei7__ is not used [-Wunused-macros] I am triaging.
[Bug other/58944] [4.9 Regression] bogus -Wunused-macros warnings when compiling Libreoffice
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58944 octoploid at yandex dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tmsriram at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from octoploid at yandex dot com --- Started with r203634.