This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] PR28901 Add two levels for -Wunused-const-variable.
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Mark Wielaard <mjw at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt at redhat dot com>, Martin Sebor <msebor at gmail dot com>, sellcey at imgtec dot com, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 11:57:56 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR28901 Add two levels for -Wunused-const-variable.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5603E4D3 dot 4050806 at redhat dot com> <1456018952-25270-1-git-send-email-mjw at redhat dot com>
On 02/20/2016 06:42 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
There is some controversy about enabling -Wunused-const-variable for all
unused static const variables because some feel there are too many errors
exposed in header files. Create two levels for -Wunused-const-variable.
One level to only check for unused static const variables in the main
compilation file. Which is enabled by -Wunused-variable. And a second
level that also checks for unused static const variables in included
header files. Which must be explicitly enabled.
gcc/ChangeLog
PR c/28901
* cgraphunit.c (check_global_declaration): Check level of
warn_unused_const_variable and main_input_filename.
* doc/invoke.texi (Warning Options): Add -Wunused-const-variable=.
(-Wunused-variable): For C implies -Wunused-const-variable=1.
(-Wunused-const-variable): Explain levels 1 and 2.
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog
PR c/28901
* c.opt (Wunused-const-variable): Turn into Alias for...
(Wunused-const-variable=): New option.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
PR c/28901
* gcc.dg/unused-variable-3.c: New test.
Note that given the discussion in the BZ, I'm going to consider this a
regression and thus eligible for the trunk.
diff --git a/gcc/cgraphunit.c b/gcc/cgraphunit.c
index 0a745f0..27a073a 100644
--- a/gcc/cgraphunit.c
+++ b/gcc/cgraphunit.c
@@ -971,7 +974,7 @@ check_global_declaration (symtab_node *snode)
(TREE_CODE (decl) == FUNCTION_DECL)
? OPT_Wunused_function
: (TREE_READONLY (decl)
- ? OPT_Wunused_const_variable
+ ? OPT_Wunused_const_variable_
Typo here?
If that's not a typo, then just say so and this is approved. If it is a
typo, the patch is approved with the typo fixed appropriately.
jeff