On Feb 3, 2015, at 6:20 AM, Chen Gang S <gang.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If what I said above is really correct, for me, we have to try to find > another ways to solve this issue (it is not worthy enough to modify > quite a few code only for avoiding the suggesting warnings). So, ultimately, it is reasonable to ask, is it better to so fix the warnings or leave them as is… Also, one is free to research better techniques on how to either improve the warning or eliminate it entirely. For example, one could have an modeless operation be auto (a la C++) instead of always VOIDmode and have auto turn into VOIDmode unless the mode can be deduced. For example (set (reg:auto ) (and:DI )) deduces to DI. Maybe failure to deduce would be what we warn for. This could be another way to get rid of some of the warnings.
