http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47332
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-01-17
20:02:43 UTC ---
No, it was removed because it was very badly designed warning.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47332
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth 2011-01-17
19:58:43 UTC ---
Also, is there a convention in FSF gcc coding for how empty bodies are supposed
to be handled? Should we have the extra space or explicit braces that the old
patch requested for empty b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47332
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth 2011-01-17
19:56:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> It was removed on purpose, see PR36478 and discussions about it on
> gcc-patches.
So it was removed because of the absence of an appropriate algorithm to
im
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47332
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47332
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
