This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] New flag -Wsystem-headers
- To: Neil Booth <NeilB at earthling dot net>
- Subject: Re: [patch] New flag -Wsystem-headers
- From: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
- cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, branko dot cibej at hermes dot si
> Please be more careful when committing - you broke cpplex.c with merge
> conflicts.
sorry, again.
> The patch has caused (I think) two regressions (but you weren't cc-ed
> on the mail about regressions). Any ideas?
> >gcc/testsuite/gcc.sum:FAIL: gcc.dg/cpp/syshdr.c (test for excess errors)
> >gcc/testsuite/gcc.sum:FAIL: gcc.dg/wtr-int-type-1.c decimal constant (test for warnings, line 40)
Not quite sure if they are related to -Wsystem-headers. Perhaps
-Wno-system-headers could be used for these files...
from gcc.dg/wtr-int-type-1.c:
/* Test for -Wtraditional warnings on integer constant types.
Note, gcc should omit these warnings in system header files.
By Kaveh R. Ghazi <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> 8/22/2000. */
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options "-Wtraditional" } */
from gcc.dg/cpp/syshdr.c:
/* Test for proper suppression of warnings in system headers,
and only in system headers. */
/* FRAGILITY WARNING: The only way we have to distinguish the good error
from the bad error is that the good error is on line 4 and the bad is
on line 5 (of their respective files). dg.exp doesn't have any way to
condition error matchers on the file they're in. */