This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] relax -Wformat-overflow for precision ranges (PR 79275)

From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Martin Sebor <msebor at gmail dot com>, Gcc Patch List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 09:40:47 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] relax -Wformat-overflow for precision ranges (PR 79275)
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <236621e2-1755-be9f-0b44-0bc9c8356d85@gmail.com> <4c1db1dd-16f5-686c-ac37-7748ccde3d63@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1701312258300.5584@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

On 01/31/2017 03:59 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017, Jeff Law wrote:

My general inclination is to ask this to wait for gcc-8 as it is not a
regression, but instead a false positive in a new warning.


I'd hope it would be possible for current releases of GCC and glibc to
build with each other.  As this seems to be a case where the warning is
clearly bogus (and started appearing during GCC stage 4), a fix in GCC
seems more appropriate than disabling the warning for that code in glibc.

As I mentioned to Jakub, I see things differently, but I can certainlysee both your and Jakub's point of view.

The irony here is I'm currently poking at 79095 which is a falsepositive in a new warning as well and marked as a regression. One couldmake the same arguments on both sides about that BZ :-)

Given we've got two release managers view 79275 as a regression and onenon-release-manager that does not, I won't push on the not-a-regressionissue. I'll add the regression marker and put the patch back in the queue.


jeff

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]