This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: "introduce no new bootstrap warning" criteria. was: Loop iv debugging, patch
- To: ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu
- Subject: Re: "introduce no new bootstrap warning" criteria. was: Loop iv debugging, patch
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:22:10 -0800
- CC: aj at suse dot de, dewar at gnat dot com, dkorn at pixelpower dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk, robertlipe at usa dot net
- References: <200101131233.HAA05704@caip.rutgers.edu>
- Reply-to: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>
> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:33:46 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
> Cc: aj@suse.de, dewar@gnat.com, dkorn@pixelpower.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
> jsm28@cam.ac.uk, robertlipe@usa.net
>
>
> > From: Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>
> >
> > > From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
> > >
> > > I looked into what it would take to turn on -Werror and/or
> > > -pedatic-errors and that doesn't seem possible. There are too many
> > > unfixable messages requiring a pragma silencer and also many warnings
> > > only appear on unusual platforms so we'd have a real hard time getting
> > > this to work without breaking bootstrap on lots of systems. Plus any
> > > time a new warning is added to -Wall, it would break systems until
> > > completely silenced also.
> >
> > Why do we have unfixable warnings in -Wall? They're not supposed
> > to be there.
>
> Recall that if we activate -Werror, we must have zero warnings on all
> platforms, even old strange broken ones.
Perhaps we could only define -Werror on non-strange-broken platforms?
You know, like Linux, Solaris, Cygwin, AIX. If you do those, you'll
cover probably 99% of the GCC developers.
> * On solaris, the system header definition of __GTHREAD_ONCE_INIT
> causes missing initializer warnings. Generically, any warning caused
> by a macro defined in system headers but used in user code is trouble.
> Checking in_system_header doesn't work for these.
Fixincludes! Fixincludes! :-)
Actually, this is not unreasonable. It's just as annoying for the
user to see these messages as it is for GCC. They probably should be
fixed in fixincludes.
> * On systems where %p isn't supported, the backup method for printing
> pointers using appropriate sized integer specifiers always causes
> -Wformat warnings. I don't think this one has a solution.
Ugh. The warnings are actually accurate, so you don't want to just
remove them. I guess these count as strange broken platforms.
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>