From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 347063858C74; Mon,  2 Oct 2023 12:46:40 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 347063858C74
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1696250800;
	bh=x1uRcnb+CsxoMRH9DbF2SKP5DPsDjdhXCkKDDIY2kzE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=JoseHMI1t5R+4hg7Q6EpL1I7hfwZY4alHdBPuoj+1drVjH008SIl4NETXZU3UOT/8
	 T6X2UpCuZBH/EknUK3HTvWOjd9dp1ucxWnep1MEhI82Zhkny0f9h3XLRmDYV8D3kb7
	 jvUtFaxVjWzbwB1S2gWG+cAohuiDJLv/gnIeBXxU=
From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/111654] Introduce clang's invalid-noreturn warning
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2023 12:46:39 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-111654-4-MMjkcSPNca@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111654-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111654-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D111654

--- Comment #4 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez <manu at gcc dot gnu=
.org> ---
(In reply to Julian Waters from comment #2)
> (In reply to Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez from comment #1)
> Yeah, I did try submitting it to gcc-patches, but it simply went ignored =
for
> forever, so I decided to submit the patch through the bug system instead,
> like others have done. I implemented it as numeric values to avoid invent=
ing
> new names for -Woption and because it was easier to implement for a gcc
> beginner like myself, so worded warnings are likely to take me longer to
> implement

Apologies, I was not aware of that.=20

I think it is a good idea to add the link to the mailing list here in bugzi=
lla
so it is not lost in the mailing list archive.

Unfortunately, gcc does not have any patch tracking system so it is up to
submitters to ping patches (the submitter is the one interested in seeing t=
he
patch committed). See for example:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/627958.html=20

It may take 4 to 10 pings to get the patch reviewed. It helps sometimes to
describe the area the patch touches in the subject. In your case, I would w=
rite
"[C family]".

It helps reviewers if you mention how the patch was tested and also if the
patch is attached as plain-text (not as application/*):
https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches

See other suggestions on how to interact with the GCC community here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Community=