This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Fix missing use of -Werror when compiling files in c-familty directory
- From: Chung-Ju Wu <jasonwucj at gmail dot com>
- To: "Balaji V. Iyer" <balaji dot v dot iyer at intel dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Graham Stott <graham dot stott at btinternet dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 00:02:23 +0800
- Subject: Re: Fix missing use of -Werror when compiling files in c-familty directory
- References: <1372861690 dot 74458 dot YahooMailNeo at web87402 dot mail dot ir2 dot yahoo dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1307031453010 dot 18167 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
2013/7/3 Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>:
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Graham Stott wrote:
>
>> Files in the c-family directory are being compiled during stage3 without
>> -Werror and other warningb flags that are part of WARN_STRICT flags.
>> Fixing this shows that array_notation_common.c generates unused
>> variable warnings and will break the build after the apcth is applied.
>>
>>
>> ChangeLog
>> 03-07-2013 Graham Stott <graham.stott>
>> * gcc/Makegfvile.in: Define c-family-warn. to WARN_STRICT.
>
> OK with a properly formatted ChangeLog entry, once the warnings are fixed
> of course.
>
> 2013-07-03 Graham Stott <graham.stott@btinternet.com>
>
> * Makefile.in (c-family-warn): Define to $(WARN_STRICT).
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> joseph@codesourcery.com
Hi, Balaji,
There is a warning in recent change of array_notation_common.c source.
In the revision r200405: http://gcc.gnu.org/r200405
you made some changes in length_mismatch_in_expr_p()
and use the variables l_length & l_node.
But in the revision r200554: http://gcc.gnu.org/r200554
you removed following two statements:
l_node = int_cst_value (list[ii][jj].length);
l_length = int_cst_value (length);
causing l_length & l_node to be unused variables.
I think it is safe to remove the declaration to avoid warning
after r200554. What do you think? :-)
Best regards,
jasonwucj