* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
@ 2006-07-09 10:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-18 15:11 ` ian at davenant dot greenend dot org dot uk
` (28 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-07-09 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-09 10:41 -------
This is more of a policy issue rather than a bug.
> Occasionally, GCC introduces new warnings. For example, GCC 4 has
> introduced warnings about discrepancies in signedness of integers
> pointed to by otherwise-compatible pointers.
but it is invalid C (standard C that is) so that case should not be mentioned.
Again this is a policy issue rather than really a bug, I am thinking about
closing this as invalid as I thought our policy is clear.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|minor |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
2006-07-09 10:41 ` [Bug other/28322] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-10-18 15:11 ` ian at davenant dot greenend dot org dot uk
2007-01-24 1:16 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (27 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: ian at davenant dot greenend dot org dot uk @ 2006-10-18 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from ian at davenant dot greenend dot org dot uk 2006-10-18 15:11 -------
> Again this is a policy issue rather than really a bug, I am
> thinking about closing this as invalid as I thought our policy is clear.
I'm afraid I don't understand. What policy are you referring to ? It seems to
me that better treatment of -Wno-this-is-not-a-recognised-warning is a
no-brainer. If my specification is too complicated then simply ignoring
unknown -Wno-* options would be a definite improvement.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
2006-07-09 10:41 ` [Bug other/28322] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-18 15:11 ` ian at davenant dot greenend dot org dot uk
@ 2007-01-24 1:16 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-20 22:24 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
` (26 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-01-24 1:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 01:15 -------
I agree with most of what you say but, unfortunately, unless someone that can
approve a patch for this also agrees, it is pointless even to think about how
to implement it. Also, bugzilla is not closely followed by GCC maintainers
(except Andrew Pinski, but Andrew is not human, he lives in bugzilla's mind).
You may have better luck in gcc@gcc.gnu.org. (if you get ignored, you may need
to try a few times, though).
I would recommend to raise one point at a time. For example,
1. GCC should ignore unknown -Wno-* options if no other warnings are to
be issued. This is always correct since the only effect of such an
option would be to suppress warnings which might otherwise be
issued. If no warnings are to be issued at all then treating even
an unknown suppression as a no-op is clearly correct.
If you get the appropriate maintainer to agree on this point, I volunteer to
implement it for GCC 4.3 (subject to my free time, but it will be high in my
priority list). You may ever convince the release manager to add it to GCC 4.2
before it is released.
Good luck!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2007-01-24 1:16 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-02-20 22:24 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
2007-02-20 22:36 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (25 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk @ 2007-02-20 22:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk 2007-02-20 22:23 -------
Manuel: thanks for volunteering to write a patch.
I've just spoken with Joseph Myers (a friend of mine who does gcc development
work), and his opinion was that this issue isn't a sufficiently major one for
it to be worth trying to make a case on the mailing list beforehand. His
recommendation was to submit a patch first. So I think you should feel free to
write the patch. (Or I might do it if I find some free time, but that doesn't
seem very likely at this point.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-20 22:24 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
@ 2007-02-20 22:36 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-20 23:15 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
` (24 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-02-20 22:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-20 22:36 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> Manuel: thanks for volunteering to write a patch.
>
> I've just spoken with Joseph Myers (a friend of mine who does gcc development
> work), and his opinion was that this issue isn't a sufficiently major one for
> it to be worth trying to make a case on the mailing list beforehand. His
> recommendation was to submit a patch first. So I think you should feel free to
> write the patch. (Or I might do it if I find some free time, but that doesn't
> seem very likely at this point.)
>
OK, I will prepare a patch for 1) and 2) when I have some free time. We can
deal with 3) later, once the first patch is approved. As far as I know, 4) is
the current policy and 5) may not be feasible, since no new features are
accepted in old branches.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-20 22:36 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-02-20 23:15 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
2007-02-20 23:22 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (23 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk @ 2007-02-20 23:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk 2007-02-20 23:15 -------
I think the point Ian was trying to make with (3) was simply that it doesn't
matter whether you choose to implement the reports of unknown -Wno-* (ie (2))
using the existing warning mechanism or by just printing to stderr. So it isn't
a separate thing that needs to be done.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-20 23:15 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
@ 2007-02-20 23:22 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-16 20:01 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (22 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-02-20 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-20 23:21 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> I think the point Ian was trying to make with (3) was simply that it doesn't
> matter whether you choose to implement the reports of unknown -Wno-* (ie (2))
> using the existing warning mechanism or by just printing to stderr. So it isn't
> a separate thing that needs to be done.
>
OK. I misread it, thanks for the clarification. So, nothing to be done for (3)
since there is already a mechanism to report unknown options.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-20 23:22 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-11-16 20:01 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-16 21:18 ` ian at davenant dot greenend dot org dot uk
` (21 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-11-16 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-16 20:01 -------
> Specification of the proposed new behaviour:
>
> 1. GCC should ignore unknown -Wno-* options if no other warnings are to
> be issued. This is always correct since the only effect of such an
> option would be to suppress warnings which might otherwise be
> issued. If no warnings are to be issued at all then treating even
> an unknown suppression as a no-op is clearly correct.
Ignoring the -Wno-* seems easy. I am not sure about the proper way to buffer
the "unknown option" messages until the end, so we can check whether any
warnings (or errors) were produced.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2007-11-16 20:01 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-11-16 21:18 ` ian at davenant dot greenend dot org dot uk
2008-02-25 23:43 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (20 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: ian at davenant dot greenend dot org dot uk @ 2007-11-16 21:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from ian at davenant dot greenend dot org dot uk 2007-11-16 21:18 -------
All that's really needed is to remember all of the unknown -Wno-* options seen.
From the point of view of the core of the option parser, accept them, but just
store the string as provided. When the first warning is printed, print a
message about them and clear them out so that the message will not be repeated.
If that's too difficult then it would be better to completely ignore unknown
-Wno-* options than to complain about them.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2007-11-16 21:18 ` ian at davenant dot greenend dot org dot uk
@ 2008-02-25 23:43 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-26 1:00 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-02-25 23:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-25 23:42 -------
Subject: Bug 28322
Author: manu
Date: Mon Feb 25 23:41:43 2008
New Revision: 132648
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132648
Log:
2008-02-26 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <manu@gcc.gnu.org>
PR 28322
* toplev.c (toplev_main): If there are warnings or error, print
errors for ignored options.
* opts.c (ignored_options): New static variable.
(postpone_unknown_option_error): New.
(print_ignored_options): New.
(handle_option): Postpone errors for unknown -Wno-* options.
* opts.h (print_ignored_options): Declare.
testsuite/
* gcc.dg/pr28322.c: New.
* gcc.dg/pr28322-2.c: New.
* lib/prune.exp: Ignore "At top level" even if there is no ':'
preceding it.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr28322-2.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr28322.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/opts.c
trunk/gcc/opts.h
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/lib/prune.exp
trunk/gcc/toplev.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-25 23:43 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-02-26 1:00 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-27 12:35 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-02-26 1:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-26 00:59 -------
The main request of this bug (ignore unknown -Wno-* options) has been committed
to 4.4. Is there anything else left to do?
As for
5. The changes to implement (1) and (2) should be backported to
earlier GCCs and earlier Debian branches insofar as practical.
I am not sure whether this patch would be suitable for backporting. I think we
would need a Release Manager to confirm this.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-26 1:00 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-02-27 12:35 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-27 13:33 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
` (17 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-02-27 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-27 12:34 -------
Patches for older branches have been posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg01357.html
I hope they are useful and don't break anything ;-)
If there is nothing else to do in this PR, I will close it in a few days.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-27 12:35 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-02-27 13:33 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
2008-02-27 13:43 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk @ 2008-02-27 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk 2008-02-27 13:32 -------
Thanks a lot for taking the time to write a patch for this. I do have one
question: if I'm reading the patch correctly, this postpones warnings about
unrecognised options not just for -Wno-* but also for -fno-* and -mno-*. Was
that deliberate?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-27 13:33 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
@ 2008-02-27 13:43 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-01 16:37 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-02-27 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-27 13:42 -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> Thanks a lot for taking the time to write a patch for this. I do have one
> question: if I'm reading the patch correctly, this postpones warnings about
> unrecognised options not just for -Wno-* but also for -fno-* and -mno-*. Was
> that deliberate?
Hum. You are right. I don't think we want to ignore -fno-* and -mno-* options
since we don't have a way to detect whether they are unimportant (like we do
with -Wno-* options). I'll fix that.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-02-27 13:42:28
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-27 13:43 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-03-01 16:37 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-02 15:19 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-03-01 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-01 16:36 -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> Thanks a lot for taking the time to write a patch for this. I do have one
> question: if I'm reading the patch correctly, this postpones warnings about
> unrecognised options not just for -Wno-* but also for -fno-* and -mno-*. Was
> that deliberate?
Updated patches for older branches have been posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg00057.html
They have testcases and have been regression tested. Nonetheless, they won't be
reviewed nor applied to GCC branches. (Only the fix for trunk will be reviewed
and applied to GCC 4.4).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2008-03-01 16:37 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-03-02 15:19 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-04 20:30 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-03-02 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-02 15:19 -------
The patch for gcc 4.3 was a duplicate of the patch for gcc 4.2. The correct
patch for gcc 4.3 is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg00094.html
(thanks to Matthias Klose for noticing this).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2008-03-02 15:19 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-03-04 20:30 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-05 16:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-03-04 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #17 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-04 20:29 -------
Subject: Bug 28322
Author: manu
Date: Tue Mar 4 20:28:52 2008
New Revision: 132870
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132870
Log:
2008-03-04 Manuel Lopez-Ibanez <manu@gcc.gnu.org>
PR 28322
* opts.c (handle_option): Postpone 'unknown option' errors only for
warning options.
testsuite/
* gcc.dg/pr28322-3.c: New.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr28322-3.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/opts.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2008-03-04 20:30 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-05-05 16:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-05-05 17:58 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
` (11 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-05-05 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #18 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-05 16:15 -------
*** Bug 35961 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tj at castaglia dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-05 16:16 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-05-05 17:58 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
2008-06-05 8:32 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
` (10 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk @ 2008-05-05 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #19 from pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk 2008-05-05 17:57 -------
Bug 35961 does suggest that we didn't quite get this patch right, though:
At top level:
cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-Wno-long-double"
The deferred 'unrecognised -Wno*' output should only be a warning, not an
error. (In particular, it shouldn't cause compilation to fail if it would
otherwise have succeeded, which it looks as if it has done here.)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-05 17:58 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
@ 2008-06-05 8:32 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
2008-07-10 3:52 ` doko at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk @ 2008-06-05 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #20 from pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk 2008-06-05 08:31 -------
I wrote:
>The deferred 'unrecognised -Wno*' output should only be a warning, not an
>error.
I suggested a patch that would correct this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-06/msg00139.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2008-06-05 8:32 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
@ 2008-07-10 3:52 ` doko at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-07-22 10:00 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: doko at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-07-10 3:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #21 from doko at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-10 03:51 -------
Subject: Bug 28322
Author: doko
Date: Thu Jul 10 03:51:04 2008
New Revision: 137687
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=137687
Log:
2008-07-10 Peter Maydell <pmaydell@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
PR other/28322
* opts.c (print_ignored_options): report postponed diagnostics for
unknown -Wno-* options as warnings, not errors.
(postpone_unknown_option_error): renamed to
postpone_unknown_option_warning.
* gcc.dg/pr28322-2.c: check that emitted diagnostic for -Wno-foobar
is a warning and not an error.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/opts.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr28322-2.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2008-07-10 3:52 ` doko at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-07-22 10:00 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-10 18:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-07-22 10:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #22 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-22 09:59 -------
Not working on this.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|manu at gcc dot gnu dot org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
| |dot org
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2008-07-22 10:00 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-02-10 18:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-12 0:25 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-02-10 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #23 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-10 18:01 -------
*** Bug 39147 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hjl dot tools at gmail dot
| |com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (22 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-10 18:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-02-12 0:25 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-12 8:35 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
` (5 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-02-12 0:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #24 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-12 00:25 -------
Is there anything that remains to be done here?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (23 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-12 0:25 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-02-12 8:35 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
2009-12-29 15:35 ` debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk @ 2009-02-12 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #25 from pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk 2009-02-12 08:35 -------
I guess we could use a patch to the docs explaining the new behaviour and the
rationale. Code-wise I think we're done.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (24 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-12 8:35 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
@ 2009-12-29 15:35 ` debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
2009-12-29 16:18 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
` (3 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org @ 2009-12-29 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #26 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2009-12-29 15:35 -------
No yet quiet right:
$ cat main.c
int main() {}
$ gcc -c -g -Wall -Wno-long-double main.c
main.c: In function 'main':
main.c:1:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
At top level:
cc1: warning: unrecognized command line option "-Wno-long-double"
only when no other warning is present, the warning about the unrecognized
option vanishes:
$ cat main.c
int main() {return 0;}
$ gcc -c -g -Wall -Wno-long-double main.c
$
--
debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (25 preceding siblings ...)
2009-12-29 15:35 ` debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
@ 2009-12-29 16:18 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
2009-12-30 1:49 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk @ 2009-12-29 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #27 from pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk 2009-12-29 16:18 -------
>only when no other warning is present, the warning about the unrecognized
>option vanishes:
Um, that is the correct behaviour as described and implemented in this bug,
isn't it?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (26 preceding siblings ...)
2009-12-29 16:18 ` pmaydell at chiark dot greenend dot org dot uk
@ 2009-12-30 1:49 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-30 11:13 ` debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
2009-12-30 11:19 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-12-30 1:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #28 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-30 01:49 -------
Seems to be working according to the original specification (in particular
points 1 and 2). The debian bug report is still closed as fixed.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (27 preceding siblings ...)
2009-12-30 1:49 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-12-30 11:13 ` debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
2009-12-30 11:19 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org @ 2009-12-30 11:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #29 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2009-12-30 11:13 -------
yes, sorry, you are right.
Matthias
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* [Bug other/28322] GCC new warnings and compatibility
2006-07-08 23:04 [Bug other/28322] New: GCC new warnings and compatibility debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (28 preceding siblings ...)
2009-12-30 11:13 ` debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
@ 2009-12-30 11:19 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
29 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-12-30 11:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #30 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-30 11:19 -------
No problem. This was implemented in GCC 4.4 and mentioned in the changes.html
page. We haven't received any complaints so far, so closing as FIXED.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28322
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread