egcs, PATCH to fix warnings in gperf generated files ...
Kaveh R. Ghazi
Tue Oct 6 10:37:00 GMT 1998
> From: Mark Mitchell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >>>>> "Kaveh" == Kaveh R Ghazi <email@example.com> writes:
> Kaveh> I sent mail to
> Kaveh> firstname.lastname@example.org which bounced, and
> Kaveh> also to email@example.com which went into a black hole. Since
> Kaveh> I am unable to reach the gperf maintainer, how about I
> Kaveh> install my patch? We can always remove it if gperf is ever
> Kaveh> fixed to produce output which passes -W -Wall...
> I think these kind of changes are not worth the effort. Proper
> prototypes, avoiding non-standard conversions, etc. are all worth
> while, but I don't think that removing every warning, even that in
> machine-generated code via editing that code, is worth it.
I disagree. Clutter warnings distract people from real ones,
and also encourage people to partially or completely turn off warning
flags. (This is not a theoretical concern, but I won't name names. :-) )
To the extent that I can remove clutter warnings without a
serious technical downside, it provides value. My patch removes a few
hundred warnings with only a couple of two liner patches. So I think
its well worth it.
> I agree
> that we should fix gperf, though; it should generate clean code.
Agreed. Once gperf is fixed, and we are using it I'll certainly
remove the workaround code.
> I'm sure Bruno can be found; if not, obviously, the FSF needs to find
> a new gperf maintainer.
> Mark Mitchell firstname.lastname@example.org
I do intend to follow up on gperf, even if my patch is
installed. Do you have an address for Bruno which is known to work?
Is he simply on vacation? :-)
Kaveh R. Ghazi Engagement Manager / Project Services
email@example.com Icon CMT Corp.
More information about the Gcc-patches