This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: "introduce no new bootstrap warning" criteria. was: Loop iv debugging, patch


>>>>> Kaveh R Ghazi writes:

 > My point is that -Werror requires *every* platform to have zero
 > warnings.  I think we could get *some* platforms down to zero, but its
 > not possible to get *all* of them IMHO.
I agree.

For reference, here're the current numbers on i686-linux with glibc
2.2 (after applying a patch of mine that I'll send separatly):

Counting all warnings,
there are 254 warnings in stage3 of this bootstrap.

Number of warnings per file:
     56	gcc/combine.c
     42	gcc/expr.c
     22	gcc/config/i386/i386.c
     20	gcc/reg-stack.c
     12	gcc/loop.c
     12	gcc/cp/pt.c
     10	gcc/cse.c
     10	gcc/cp/error.c
      6	gcc/reload1.c
      6	gcc/gcc.c
      4	hashtab.c
      4	gcc/reload.c
      4	gcc/regmove.c
      4	gcc/real.c
      4	gcc/libgcc2.c
      4	gcc/function.c
      4	gcc/fold-const.c
      4	gcc/cp/call.c
      4	gcc/alias.c
      2	gcc/sched-deps.c
      2	gcc/objc/lang-specs.h
      2	gcc/final.c
      2	gcc/f/lang-specs.h
      2	gcc/expmed.c
      2	gcc/dwarfout.c
      2	gcc/dwarf2out.c
      2	gcc/cp/lang-specs.h
      2	gcc/cp/init.c
      2	gcc/cp/errfn.c
      2	gcc/c-lex.c

Number of warning types:
    156	comparison between signed and unsigned
     20	`???' might be used uninitialized in this function
     14	unused variable `???'
     14	signed and unsigned type in conditional expression
     12	string length `???' is greater than the minimum length `???' ISO C89 is required to support
     10	initialization from incompatible pointer type
      8	function declaration isn't a prototype
      6	`???' defined but not used
      2	unused parameter `???'
      2	pointer targets in passing arg ??? of `???' differ in signedness
      2	passing arg ??? of `???' discards qualifiers from pointer target type
      2	no previous prototype for `???'
      2	integer constant is unsigned in ISO C, signed with -traditional
      2	function-like macro `strcmp' must be used with arguments in traditional C
      2	decimal constant is so large that it is unsigned

The libgcc2.c warnigns might be fixed now with Richard Kenner's patch
and I'm looking into i386.c now.

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de
    http://www.suse.de/~aj

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