Warning annoyances in list_read.c

Steve Kargl sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
Mon Mar 27 13:26:00 GMT 2017


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.

-- 
Steve
20161221 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbCHE-hONow



More information about the Gcc mailing list