[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190723033807.GA15665@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 23:38:07 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] fix warning dangling-else
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 02:31:24AM +0000, Fangrui Song wrote:
> With the attached patch, gcc has just some warnings in src/ctype/towctrans.c
>
> [-Wdangling-else]
> supposedly it will be address soon: "In the case of patch 1 here,
> there's actually a pending replacement implementation for the whole
> file."
>
> clang has a few more:
>
> % grep -o '\[-.*\]' /tmp/clang.log | sort | uniq -c
> 4 [-Wdangling-else]
> 10 [-Wignored-attributes]
> they are all in the form of `weak_alias(statfs, statfs64)`.
> these warnings will go away when the lfs64 things are fixed.
> 18 [-Wunknown-pragmas]
> src/math/fmal.c:167:15: warning: pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS ON is not supported, ignoring pragma [-Wunknown-pragmas]
> #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS ON
> There is a long-standing bug https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8100
> "[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Why is #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS not supported?" was a 2018 discussion on this topic.
>
> [-Wdangling-else] and [-Wignored-attributes] will go away soon.
> From bf24cf2d5717505b5c880d2eb6714789f86a902c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Fangrui Song <i@...kray.me>
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 02:02:47 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH] disable some known-unwanted but enabled-by-default warnings
> in clang
>
> the known-unwanted -Wstring-plus-int and the warning group -Wparentheses
> are enabled by default in clang. adjust CFLAGS_AUTO to disable these
> warnings whether or not --enable-warnings is specified.
> ---
> configure | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/configure b/configure
> index 86801281..7f63a873 100755
> --- a/configure
> +++ b/configure
> @@ -514,7 +514,6 @@ test "$cc_family" = clang && tryflag CFLAGS_AUTO -Qunused-arguments
>
> if test "x$warnings" = xyes ; then
> tryflag CFLAGS_AUTO -Wall
> -tryflag CFLAGS_AUTO -Wno-parentheses
> tryflag CFLAGS_AUTO -Wno-uninitialized
> tryflag CFLAGS_AUTO -Wno-missing-braces
> tryflag CFLAGS_AUTO -Wno-unused-value
> @@ -522,6 +521,9 @@ tryflag CFLAGS_AUTO -Wno-unused-but-set-variable
> tryflag CFLAGS_AUTO -Wno-unknown-pragmas
> tryflag CFLAGS_AUTO -Wno-pointer-to-int-cast
> fi
> +tryflag CFLAGS_AUTO -Wno-string-plus-int
> +tryflag CFLAGS_AUTO -Wno-parentheses
> +tryflag CFLAGS_AUTO -Wdangling-else
Why is the patch adding a test to *enable* a warning outside of the
--enable-warnings case? The -Wno's here make sense -- maybe we
should just add the disables for warnings we don't want that we know
clang or cparser have on by default, to avoid having to worry about -w
discrepancy between gcc and others.
Regarding -Wdangling-else itself, it's still a style rule that's not
followed in musl. The similar -Wmisleading-indentation seems closer to
style we do generally follow and might be appropriate under
--enable-warnings, if it doesn't have any annoying false positives.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
