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: geoffk at redhat dot com, jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk
- Subject: Re: "introduce no new bootstrap warning" criteria. was: Loop iv debugging, patch
- From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:26:19 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: aj at suse dot de, dewar at gnat dot com, dkorn at pixelpower dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, robertlipe at usa dot net, zackw at Stanford dot EDU
> From: Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>
>
> > On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Geoff Keating wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
That might be workable. But IMHO, this list should be the same as the
"primary evaluation platforms", so perhaps you add irix6 and hpux?? to
the list.
> >
> > That will break every time glibc changes in a way that causes warnings.
> >
> > e.g., the "macro strcmp used without args" ones aren't reasonably fixable;
> > when glibc 2.2 changed the iconv prototype, that caused warnings; glibc
> > 2.2.1 causes the "ISO C99 requires rest arguments to be used" warnings
> > every place printf is used with just one argument.
>
> ... so perhaps we should try to avoid having glibc change like that?
;-)
> Or perhaps the macro expander should track which macros are defined in
> system headers and not produce warnings for them?
That's a worthwhile project IMHO, even outside this context. See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-08/msg00334.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-08/msg00432.html
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu Qwest Internet Solutions