This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Warning annoyances in list_read.c
On 2017.03.27 at 06:26 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 08:58:43AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > On 2017.03.26 at 19:30 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 06:45:07PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> > > > On 03/26/2017 11:45 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 11:27:59AM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> +#pragma GCC diagnostic push
> > > > >> +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wimplicit-fallthrough"
> > > > >
> > > > > IMNSHO, the correct fix is to complain loudly to whomever
> > > > > added -Wimplicit-fallthrough to compiler options. It should
> > > > > be removed (especially if is has been added to -Wall).
> > > > >
> > > > > You can also probably add -Wno-implicit-fallthrough to
> > > > > libgfortran/configure.ac at
> > > > >
> > > > > # Add -Wall -fno-repack-arrays -fno-underscoring if we are using GCC.
> > > > > if test "x$GCC" = "xyes"; then
> > > > > AM_FCFLAGS="-I . -Wall -Werror -fimplicit-none -fno-repack-arrays -fno-underscoring"
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Problem I have is I don't know who to complain to. I think there is a bit of a
> > > > glass wall going on here anyway, so what would be the point of complaining if
> > > > the retrievers of the message all have the ON-OFF switch in the OFF position.
> > > > (After all, I do not have a PHD, I am not a computer science graduate, why
> > > > bother looking down ones nose at a low life such as myself, OMG its an engineer,
> > > > what the hell does he know.)
> > > >
> > > > Maybe these warnings are being turned on as a matter of policy, but truth is,
> > > > when I build 50 times a day, the warnings flying by are masking the errors or
> > > > other warnings that may be important. For example, I inadvertently passed a ptr
> > > > to a function rather than the *ptr.
> > > >
> > > > The warning that ensued flew by mixed in with all the other crap warnings and I
> > > > did not see it. That cost me wasted cycle time (remember, I am not an expert and
> > > > should not be expected to see such things. Hell, for that matter I should not
> > > > even be doing any of this work. :)
> > > >
> > >
> > > This option is clearly enforceing someone's preferred markup of
> > > adding a comment to explicitly note a fall through. Candidate
> > > individual to complain to
> > >
> > > If he added a new option affecting libgfortran, then he should
> > > fix up libgfortran.
> >
> > He didn't add the warning to specifically annoy fortran developers.
> > It is trivial to add seven gcc_fallthrough() or breaks for someone who
> > knows the code and the person who added the warning obviously doesn't.
> >
>
> I completely disagree with your viewpoint here. If someone turns
> on a silly warning, that someone should fix all places within the
> tree that triggers that warning. There is ZERO value to this warning,
> but added work for others to clean up that someone's mess.
Well, a missing break is a bug. No?
This warning has already uncovered several bugs in the tree, so calling
it silly makes no sense.
--
Markus