X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=wM9mva8Qm1v3LkXHrordQlXfzwpJsP4v/qtDEBinTIc=; b=E44nxFulXuJ3Yuu3uBu/96ZsuIARaxHQGgxDZDheAccloVHZkmnpVGzY5ph9UfNOo+ FJ/uCkGnwR6Zzc/Fl06EybrPJpq6PKW7Qu7GctvOfG4S6ROTvPl9Yra/mUoeD+mGVZ3L wSS4GGk4iAlfg7mhAhVnfOrNfcLuv/5QzIs2oZuwaKKR1Pf8SQ0jkRzhWxLTaSyVdsts iFopXN2jI6gpiTupEy3R/u2PRBAllJVJOoVTOAVI5/iQh2x3tjYYMjpdDQuxVGvPOqwz ljcFc8yJoxaHVAg3E67a66SEsQQC4fRpNNa5Qp78A++Pps0ZBqFlNQFQb7IU/Vv0DRIi CfyA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.81.201 with SMTP id a9mr20077205icl.9.1431676303214; Fri, 15 May 2015 00:51:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <831tiii8vj.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83k2wcjt8e DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <83bnhojnwh DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <838ucsjnbl DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <83vbfvi3t1 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <5554DF05 DOT 7020707 AT iki DOT fi> <55556DFF DOT 8020400 AT iki DOT fi> <831tiii8vj DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 10:51:43 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bad pragma in dir.h? (and our structrure packing) From: "Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com)" To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On 5/15/15, Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) wrote: >> Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 06:54:39 +0300 >> From: "Andris Pavenis (andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi)" >> >> We need to be sure that such typedef will not cause warnings about unused >> typedef for some GCC >> versions. > > Which GCC versions do that? gcc 4.7+ > How can they produce such warnings > without complaining about system header files, which are replete with > unused typedefs? At the very least, they should exempt header files, > or at least system header files, which these are. > > So I find it hard to believe this could be a problem. > IIUC, the warnings are only for local typedefs within function bodies and not for global ones.