[Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build

[Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

On i686-pc-mingw32, configuring with the following:

../gcc/configure --prefix=/mingw --enable-languages=c,fortran
--with-gmp=$HOME/local --with-mpfr=$HOME/local --disable-libssp
--disable-libmudflap --disable-nls --with-ld=/mingw/bin/ld
--with-as=/mingw/bin/as

and running make gives:

cc1.exe: warnings being treated as errors
../../gcc/gcc/tree-pretty-print.c: In function 'dump_bb_header':
../../gcc/gcc/tree-pretty-print.c:2267: warning: ISO C does not support the 'I'
printf flag
../../gcc/gcc/tree-pretty-print.c:2267: warning: format '%I64d' expects type
'int', but argument 3 has type 'gcov_type'
make: *** [tree-pretty-print.o] Error 1


-- 
           Summary: Werror problem in build
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.2.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: build
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: bootstrap
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
 GCC build triplet: i686-pc-mingw32
  GCC host triplet: i686-pc-mingw32
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-mingw32


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-20 11:35 -------
Same problem for gcc/cfg.c, gcc/loop-unroll.c, gcc/loop-iv.c and others. Seems
like a definition problem with HOST_WIDEST_INT_PRINT_DEC.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-20 16:37 -------
Would be caused by:
2005-08-23  Mark Mitchell  <mark@codesourcery.com>

        * hwint.h (HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT): Use HOST_LONG_LONG_FORMAT.
2004-11-23  Mark Mitchell  <mark@codesourcery.com>

        * hwint.h (HOST_LONG_LONG_FORMAT): New macro.  Use it throughout.
        * config/i386/xm-mingw32.h (HOST_LONG_LONG_FORMAT): Define. 
        * doc/hostconfig.texi (HOST_LONG_LONG_FORMAT): Document.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-20 16:44 -------
This was discussed after I posted the patch.  The GCC format-checking stuff
does not know about the Windows extensions.  So, on MinGW, you should
--disable-werror.  This bug should be reclassified as a diagnostic bug; it's a
limitation in the format checkers, not a bug in the macros.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-22 07:35 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> So, on MinGW, you should --disable-werror.

I can understand the why, but I don't think it should be required (because that
means other warnings will not be spotted). And anyway, it should at least be
release-noted.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build

[mark at codesourcery dot com]

------- Comment #5 from mark at codesourcery dot com  2005-12-22 08:19 -------
Subject: Re:  Werror problem in build

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-12-22 07:35 -------
> (In reply to comment #3)
> 
>>So, on MinGW, you should --disable-werror.
> 
> 
> I can understand the why, but I don't think it should be required (because that
> means other warnings will not be spotted).

There is no way around this; if you do not use the special Microsoft
formats you will not get incorrect results; there are places where GCC
must print a 64-bit integer, especially when configured with 64-bit
HOST_WIDE_INTs, which is required for some targets.

> And anyway, it should at least be release-noted.

Good idea!  Care to submit a patch for the caveats page?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2005-12-23 05:44:30
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build

[rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-06-04 09:47 -------
By the way, x-mingw32 contains:

  # On MinGW, we use "%IA64d" to print 64-bit integers, and the format-checking
  # code does not handle that, so we have to disable checking here.
  WERROR_FLAGS += -Wno-format

This should have fixed the problem, but it doesn't for some reason.

See also:

  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg02223.html

(and the follow-up messages).


-- 

rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build

[dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net]

------- Comment #7 from dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net  2006-06-04 11:02 -------

In my local tree (and in the 3.4.x mingw tree), I have added a modification and
extension of this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg02296.html

I plan to follow up in stage 1 of  4.3 

This patch silences the worst of the warnings.  However, because of the
-pedantic switch, I still get warnings like

../../gcc/gcc/gcov-dump.c:408: warning: ISO C does not support the 'I64' printf
length modifier

-Wno-pedantic-errors doesn't work for me, so --disable-werror is still
necessary.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-05-22 13:06 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> I plan to follow up in stage 1 of  4.3 

ping?

There was a patch for %I64 proposed here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00767.html


-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dannysmith at users dot
                   |                            |sourceforge dot net


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-07-17 21:13 -------
*** Bug 32794 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build

[zuxy dot meng at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #10 from zuxy dot meng at gmail dot com  2008-03-19 06:43 -------
Still, 4.3.0 can't recoginze %I64d


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-03-19 07:09 -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> Still, 4.3.0 can't recoginze %I64d


And that is because it is just being added:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg01109.html


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build

[dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net]

------- Comment #12 from dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net  2008-03-19 21:35 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > Still, 4.3.0 can't recoginze %I64d
> 
> 
> And that is because it is just being added:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg01109.html
> 

Even with that patch, we still get 
"ISO C does not support the 'I64' printf length modifier" warnings because of
--predantic.  IMO, that warning is valid and useful and should not be "fixed".
Danny


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build

[aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com]

------- Comment #13 from aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com  2008-05-11 03:04 -------
What would be an acceptable solution other than having bootstrap perpetually
broken, and other than --disable-werror?

1) We could only enable this warning when in strict mode, eg -std=c99
-pedantic.  -std=gnu99 -pedantic would not warn.  This seems like it might be
best.

2) Adding __extension__ will silence this warning.  Should we make a macro to
decorate these uses of HOST_WIDEST_INT_PRINT_DEC?

3) Worse case, can we just HOST_WIDEST_INT long?


-- 

aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot
                   |                            |com
   Last reconfirmed|2005-12-23 05:44:30         |2008-05-11 03:04:43
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] I64d format Werror problem in build

[aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com]

------- Comment #14 from aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com  2008-05-11 04:48 -------
Another question: why does "lld" not cause warnings on linux here?  I don't see
what the difference is.  Whatever the situation is, I don't see any reason that
"I64d" should behave differently from "lld" in gnu89 mode.


-- 

aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  GCC build triplet|i686-pc-mingw32             |
 GCC target triplet|i686-pc-mingw32             |
   Last reconfirmed|2008-05-11 03:04:43         |2008-05-11 04:48:20
               date|                            |
            Summary|Werror problem in build     |I64d format Werror problem
                   |                            |in build


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] I64d format Werror problem in build

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

------- Comment #15 from joseph at codesourcery dot com  2008-05-11 12:15 -------
Subject: Re:  Werror problem in build

On Sun, 11 May 2008, aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com wrote:

> ------- Comment #13 from aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com  2008-05-11 03:04 -------
> What would be an acceptable solution other than having bootstrap perpetually
> broken, and other than --disable-werror?

You could disable -pedantic when bootstrapping on Windows hosts, or use 
-Wno-error=format, or make it possible to control these warnings 
separately with -Wno-error=format-pedantic.

> 1) We could only enable this warning when in strict mode, eg -std=c99
> -pedantic.  -std=gnu99 -pedantic would not warn.  This seems like it might be
> best.

This isn't how the warning options are meant to work; I don't think we 
want yet more variations on when particular warnings are enabled.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] I64d format Werror problem in build

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

------- Comment #16 from joseph at codesourcery dot com  2008-05-11 12:17 -------
Subject: Re:  I64d format Werror problem in build

On Sun, 11 May 2008, aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com wrote:

> Another question: why does "lld" not cause warnings on linux here?  I don't see
> what the difference is.  Whatever the situation is, I don't see any reason that
> "I64d" should behave differently from "lld" in gnu89 mode.

The difference is that "lld" is a standard C99 format and "I64d" isn't; 
-Wno-long-long disables warnings in gnu89 -pedantic mode for certain 
standard C99 usages, not for non-standard usages.  You could add 
-Wno-long-long-windows-formats to disable warning for "I64d" in both gnu89 
and gnu99 modes.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] I64d format Werror problem in build

[aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com]

------- Comment #17 from aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com  2008-05-11 21:24 -------
(In reply to comment #16)
> -Wno-long-long disables warnings in gnu89 -pedantic mode for certain 
> standard C99 usages, not for non-standard usages.  You could add 
> -Wno-long-long-windows-formats to disable warning for "I64d" in both gnu89 
> and gnu99 modes.

I like this idea; it lets us resolve this issue without having to neuter this
port in one way or another.  If there are no objections, I will prepare a patch
for this.

On naming, this isn't so much a Windowsism as a MSVCism.  Maybe this should be
named -Wlong-long-ms-formats similarly to -fms-extension or
-fvisibility-ms-compat?


-- 

aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot
                   |dot org                     |com
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2008-05-11 04:48:20         |2008-05-11 21:24:33
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] I64d format Werror problem in build

[ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #18 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-05-19 10:27 -------
The problem here is not that the ms-formatter patch can't treat I/I32/I64. The
problem is, that the ms-extensions are treated as gnu-extensions, which is in
my option wrong. The scalar width specifiers should be treated as C89, and C90.
So those meaningless warnings are avoided. The initial patch made this. I tried
to discuss this while implementation with Danny, but he insisted that it should
be implemented as gnu extensions, so it is.

Cheers,
  Kai


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] I64d format Werror problem in build

[aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com]

------- Comment #19 from aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com  2008-08-24 01:17 -------
Kai, I'm assigning this to you because you said on IRC a month or two ago that
you were working on a patch for this.  I've been working around this with a
local patch that adds __extension__ everywhere that needs it.


-- 

aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot  |ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |com                         |org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] I64d format Werror problem in build

[aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com]

------- Comment #20 from aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com  2008-09-14 03:27 -------
Danny has recommended that we wait until 4.5 to add -Wno-pedantic-ms-format
which will resolve this problem. 
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-09/msg00664.html>.

In the meantime, I'll keep the patch at
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-09/msg00594.html> in my tree to allow
bootstraps from trunk to work without using --disable-werror.  It's important
we keep keep using -Werror so that more problems don't creep into
Windows-specific code, whether they're bona fide bugs or just false positives. 
(Previously, I was adding __extension__ to each the site of each printf to
allow the build to work.)

Anyway, this shouldn't affect 4.4.x release builds, for which --disable-werror
is the default.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502

[Bug bootstrap/25502] I64d format Werror problem in build

[ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #21 from ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-10-13 10:39 -------
Fix on trunk on revision 141087. See
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-10/msg00428.html for the patch.


-- 

ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25502