From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id A38C03858401; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 10:00:29 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A38C03858401 From: "tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug bootstrap/102831] [12 regression] Spurious -Wparentheses etc. warnings Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 10:00:29 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: bootstrap X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: build, diagnostic, GC X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 10:00:29 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102831 Thomas Schwinge changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.o= rg --- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge --- (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0) > Recently, Solaris bootstrap has repeatedly been broken in very confusing > ways: [...] (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1) > See PR bootstrap/101574 for a similar report. Indeed. But, hmm, that's unfortunate, as my commit r12-3498-g6c79057fae6bbb36c4a4fd61c5b7107a16b71b17 "Don't maintain a warning spec for 'UNKNOWN_LOCATION'/'BUILTINS_LOCATION' [PR101574]" has been meant = to generally resolve this issue (per my analysis/understanding) -- well, maybe= it did, and there really is another issue here? Are you guys able to reliably reproduce the problem? Asking because for me= , it was very flaky: some (seemingly random) change elsewhere in the compiler, a= nd PR101574 often didn't reproduce anymore (but came back later). (But really have not anymore seen it since the aforementioned commit.) PR101204 and PR101292 may or may not be relevant, too.=