mirror/gcc
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git synced 2025-03-25 01:20:52 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Minor reformatting.

Browse Source 
From-SVN: r146697
This commit is contained in:
Arnaud Charlet 2009-04-24 12:33:02 +02:00
parent 481f29eb5e
commit e3dd53ec49
3 changed files with 9 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

3
gcc/ada/s-osinte-darwin.adb
View File

@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
-- --
-- B o d y --
-- --
-- Copyright (C) 1999-2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc. --
-- Copyright (C) 1999-2009, Free Software Foundation, Inc. --
-- --
-- GNARL is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under --
-- terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Soft- --
@ -156,7 +156,6 @@ package body System.OS_Interface is
function lwp_self return Address is
function pthread_mach_thread_np (thread : pthread_t) return Address;
pragma Import (C, pthread_mach_thread_np, "pthread_mach_thread_np");
begin
return pthread_mach_thread_np (pthread_self);
end lwp_self;

2
gcc/ada/s-osinte-darwin.ads
View File

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
-- S p e c --
-- --
-- Copyright (C) 1991-1994, Florida State University --
-- Copyright (C) 1995-2008, Free Software Foundation, Inc. --
-- Copyright (C) 1995-2009, Free Software Foundation, Inc. --
-- --
-- GNARL is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under --
-- terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Soft- --

8
gcc/ada/sem_warn.adb
View File

@ -212,11 +212,17 @@ package body Sem_Warn is
end if;
-- Check multiple code statements in a row
-- Note : the following code is now unreachable, because Asm statements
-- Note: the following code is now unreachable, because Asm statements
-- are procedure calls whose actuals are concatenations, and as a result
-- of a recent stack usage optimization each such call has its own
-- block.
-- Are they always concatenations??? if so why not remove this code???
-- And indeed if we are really losing this warning, that's really bad
-- and we need to put it back ???
if Is_List_Member (N)
and then Present (Prev (N))
and then Nkind (Prev (N)) = N_Code_Statement