This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: Warnings about rcs_id strings: let's settle this
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- To: Kean Johnston <jkj at sco dot com>
- Cc: 'Mark Mitchell' <mark at codesourcery dot com>, 'Zack Weinberg' <zack at codesourcery dot com>, 'Joe Buck' <jbuck at synopsys dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 18:58:19 +0100 (BST)
- Subject: RE: Warnings about rcs_id strings: let's settle this
- References: <00bf01c31195$c0c28a40$03419384@shrike>
On Sat, 3 May 2003, Kean Johnston wrote:
> > Joe Buck would very much like to see us do something here for the 3.3
> > release.
> How about the attached patch then. I would like to do a better job
> as discussed here for 3.4 if that's OK? But will this do for 3.3?
> One caveat. I cant build a 3.3 tree easily at all, so this patch is
> COMPLETELY untested. I would greatly appreciate it if someone would
> do that for me.
>
> 2003-05-02 Kean Johnston <jkj@sco.com>
>
> * toplev.c (check_global_declarations): Restore 3.2 behaviour
> with
> regards to unused statics.
All patches require testcases (in this case, a testcase added to gcc.dg
that tests that -Wall does not warn for the problematic case); see
<http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html>. Since you are also making
changes regarding inline functions and declarations in system headers,
those should be included in the testcase as well. The tests should fail
before the patch and pass after the patch, so that they do actually test
the intended change in semantics. (It is OK - but not needed for a patch
like this - also to add general tests for the feature as a whole, that
pass both before and after the patch - testing that there are indeed
warnings for unused variables and functions where desired. Any subsequent
patch for mainline separating out additional options should have such
general tests.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk