Re: [PATCH 1/3] Revert "make error()'s constant return value more visible"

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: May 5, 2014, 06:29 UTC
Message-ID: <20140505062931.GA9311@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <53672c53f2ed9_2e86acd30c6e@nysa.notmuch>

On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 01:14:43AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:

Show 24 quoted lines

> Jeff King wrote:
> > On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 12:45:30AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > 
> > > Jeff King wrote:
> > > > On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 01:12:53AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > So it looks like gcc is smarter now, and in trying to fix a few warnings
> > > > > we generated hundreds more.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This reverts commit e208f9cc7574f5980faba498d0aa30b4defeb34f.
> > > > 
> > > > And now we've gone the other way, and re-enabled the initial warnings.
> > > > Can we come up with a solution that helps both cases?
> > > 
> > > What initial warnings? As I explained already I don't get any warnings
> > > with this patch series in gcc 4.9.0.
> > 
> > The "few warnings" in your statement quoted above.
> > 
> > You could try reading the commit message of the commit you are
> > reverting, which explains it, but the short answer is: try compiling
> > with -O3.
> 
> Sigh. And I'm the one with the abrasive style of communication.

I apologize if that seemed abrasive. I am slightly annoyed that you seemed to be reverting my commit without understanding (or dealing with) the problem that the original fixed.

But I was _also_ trying to point you in the right direction by directing you to -O3. Do you see the problem now? And did you look at the follow-up patch I sent?

-Peff