public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build
@ 2005-12-20 11:30 fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-12-20 11:35 ` [Bug bootstrap/25502] " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (21 more replies)
0 siblings, 22 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-12-20 11:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-12-20 11:35 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-12-20 16:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (20 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-12-20 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-12-20 11:35 ` [Bug bootstrap/25502] " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-12-20 16:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-12-20 16:44 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-12-20 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-12-20 11:35 ` [Bug bootstrap/25502] " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-12-20 16:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-12-20 16:44 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-12-22 7:35 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-12-20 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-12-20 16:44 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-12-22 7:35 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-12-22 8:19 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
` (17 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-12-22 7:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2005-12-22 7:35 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-12-22 8:19 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
2005-12-23 5:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: mark at codesourcery dot com @ 2005-12-22 8:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2005-12-22 8:19 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
@ 2005-12-23 5:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-06-04 9:47 ` rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-12-23 5:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2005-12-23 5:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-06-04 9:47 ` rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-06-04 11:02 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
` (14 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-06-04 9:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2006-06-04 9:47 ` rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-06-04 11:02 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2007-05-22 12:06 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net @ 2006-06-04 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2006-06-04 11:02 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
@ 2007-05-22 12:06 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-07-17 21:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-05-22 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2007-05-22 12:06 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-07-17 21:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-19 6:43 ` zuxy dot meng at gmail dot com
` (11 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-07-17 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2007-07-17 21:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-03-19 6:43 ` zuxy dot meng at gmail dot com
2008-03-19 7:10 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: zuxy dot meng at gmail dot com @ 2008-03-19 6:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2008-03-19 6:43 ` zuxy dot meng at gmail dot com
@ 2008-03-19 7:10 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-19 21:36 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
` (9 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-03-19 7:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2008-03-19 7:10 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-03-19 21:36 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2008-05-11 3:05 ` aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net @ 2008-03-19 21:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2008-03-19 21:36 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
@ 2008-05-11 3:05 ` aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
2008-05-11 4:49 ` [Bug bootstrap/25502] I64d format " aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com @ 2008-05-11 3:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] I64d format Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-11 3:05 ` aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
@ 2008-05-11 4:49 ` aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
2008-05-11 12:16 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com @ 2008-05-11 4:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] I64d format Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-11 4:49 ` [Bug bootstrap/25502] I64d format " aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
@ 2008-05-11 12:16 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2008-05-11 12:18 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2008-05-11 12:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] I64d format Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-11 12:16 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2008-05-11 12:18 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2008-05-11 21:25 ` aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2008-05-11 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] I64d format Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-11 12:18 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2008-05-11 21:25 ` aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
2008-05-19 10:28 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com @ 2008-05-11 21:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] I64d format Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-11 21:25 ` aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
@ 2008-05-19 10:28 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-08-24 1:18 ` aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-05-19 10:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] I64d format Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2008-05-19 10:28 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-08-24 1:18 ` aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
2008-09-14 3:28 ` aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
2008-10-13 10:41 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com @ 2008-08-24 1:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] I64d format Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2008-08-24 1:18 ` aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
@ 2008-09-14 3:28 ` aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
2008-10-13 10:41 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com @ 2008-09-14 3:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/25502] I64d format Werror problem in build
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2008-09-14 3:28 ` aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
@ 2008-10-13 10:41 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org
21 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-10-13 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-10-13 10:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-12-20 11:30 [Bug bootstrap/25502] New: Werror problem in build fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-12-20 11:35 ` [Bug bootstrap/25502] " fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-12-20 16:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-12-20 16:44 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-12-22 7:35 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-12-22 8:19 ` mark at codesourcery dot com
2005-12-23 5:44 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-06-04 9:47 ` rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-06-04 11:02 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2007-05-22 12:06 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-07-17 21:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-19 6:43 ` zuxy dot meng at gmail dot com
2008-03-19 7:10 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-19 21:36 ` dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net
2008-05-11 3:05 ` aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
2008-05-11 4:49 ` [Bug bootstrap/25502] I64d format " aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
2008-05-11 12:16 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2008-05-11 12:18 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2008-05-11 21:25 ` aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
2008-05-19 10:28 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-08-24 1:18 ` aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
2008-09-14 3:28 ` aaronavay62 at aaronwl dot com
2008-10-13 10:41 ` ktietz at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).