From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3160 invoked by alias); 12 May 2014 12:26:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 2842 invoked by uid 48); 12 May 2014 12:26:15 -0000 From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/39438] Can't compile a wrapper around strftime with -Werror=format-nonliteral Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 12:26:00 -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: 4.3.2 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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: 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-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg01007.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D39438 Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez --- Could you produce a complete testcase that (In reply to D. Hugh Redelmeier = from comment #4) > I have this problem too. I'm writing a wrapper for strftime. I get a > warning on the actual strftime call.=20=20 >=20 > warning: format not a string literal, format string not checked > [-Wformat-nonliteral] > strftime(buf, buflen, fmt, t); >=20 > Surely GCC should not that for "fmt" argument has been checked to be a va= lid > strftime format at the points where prettynow gets called. So there is no > need to whine that it is unchecked. >=20 You should be able to produce a minimal self-contained testcase (the one you posted doesn't compile). See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/minimize.html The best would be to include only the definitions of the types that you need and declare as 'extern' library functions that you use to avoid including headers. If you can produce another similar example that works with printf, that wou= ld also help. The second step would be to find out why it works with printf and not with strftime, but that would require debugging GCC while compiling your (new) testcases, so saving the first step will make it more likely that someone w= ill do the second. >>From gcc-bugs-return-451316-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon May 12 12:29:46 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 5468 invoked by alias); 12 May 2014 12:29:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 5419 invoked by uid 48); 12 May 2014 12:29:43 -0000 From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug other/61146] wide-int error when building GCC with clang Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 12:29:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: other X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED 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: 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-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg01008.txt.bz2 Content-length: 800 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D61146 Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez --- (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #0) > The *FLAGS_FOR_TARGET are required or else they will be set to *FLAGS, wh= ich > will pass -fheinous-gnu-extensions to the SH xgcc when building libgcc et= c. > (PR 25672) It is funny that Clang has a flag called "heinous-gnu-extensions". I wonder what other things are enabled by that (what they think are heinous GNU extensions and why). >>From gcc-bugs-return-451317-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Mon May 12 12:36:56 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 8892 invoked by alias); 12 May 2014 12:36:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 8856 invoked by uid 48); 12 May 2014 12:36:52 -0000 From: "bugdal at aerifal dot cx" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/61144] Invalid optimizations for extern vars with local weak definitions Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 12:36:00 -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: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: bugdal at aerifal dot cx X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg01009.txt.bz2 Content-length: 367 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61144 --- Comment #8 from Rich Felker --- Further investigation suggests that the real gcc 4.8.2 is not affected; I was mislead by the fact that Debian is shipping as "gcc-4.8_4.8.2-21" an svn snapshot that's actually post-4.8.2. So 4.9.0 seems to be the only official release that's affected.