public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/77299] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants
[not found] <bug-77299-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2021-08-27 18:49 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-08-27 18:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-08-27 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |diagnostic
Last reconfirmed| |2021-08-27
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|RESOLVED |NEW
Resolution|DUPLICATE |---
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This is not a dup of bug 77297 but there might be another bug this is a dup of
though. The problem here is the macros come from system headers.
Using -Wsystem-headers allows for the warnings to get through.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/77299] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants
[not found] <bug-77299-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2021-08-27 18:49 ` [Bug c++/77299] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-08-27 18:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 9:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-08-27 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
It is a dup of bug 77513 though.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 77513 ***
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/77299] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants
[not found] <bug-77299-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2021-08-27 18:49 ` [Bug c++/77299] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-08-27 18:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-11-22 9:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 9:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-22 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Actually a dup of bug 57201.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 57201 ***
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/77299] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants
[not found] <bug-77299-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-11-22 9:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-11-22 9:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 9:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-22 9:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |NEW
Resolution|DUPLICATE |---
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Actually let's reopen this one.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/77299] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants
[not found] <bug-77299-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-11-22 9:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-11-22 9:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 9:52 ` [Bug c++/77299] [9/10/11/12 Regression] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants due macro tracking from system headers pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-22 9:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 103347 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/77299] [9/10/11/12 Regression] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants due macro tracking from system headers
[not found] <bug-77299-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2021-11-22 9:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-11-22 9:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 9:58 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-22 9:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|No warning for unused |[9/10/11/12 Regression] No
|"INT64_MAX" and similar |warning for unused
|constants due macro |"INT64_MAX" and similar
|tracking from system |constants due macro
|headers |tracking from system
| |headers
Known to work| |5.1.0
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Known to fail| |6.1.0
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Note inconsistency of INT64_MIN vs INT64_MAX was "fixed" in GCC 9 in that now
INT64_MAX does not even warn.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/77299] [9/10/11/12 Regression] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants due macro tracking from system headers
[not found] <bug-77299-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2021-11-22 9:52 ` [Bug c++/77299] [9/10/11/12 Regression] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants due macro tracking from system headers pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-11-22 9:58 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 10:05 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-22 9:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This has regression repeatedly.
GCC 5 warned about all the unused statements:
unused.C: In function 'int main()':
unused.C:5:12: warning: statement has no effect [-Wunused-value]
INT64_MIN; // no warning
^
unused.C:6:12: warning: statement has no effect [-Wunused-value]
INT64_MIN; // no warning
^
unused.C:7:12: warning: statement has no effect [-Wunused-value]
INT64_MAX; // -Wunused-value
^
unused.C:8:12: warning: statement has no effect [-Wunused-value]
INT64_MAX; // -Wunused-value
^
unused.C:9:4: warning: statement has no effect [-Wunused-value]
1; // -Wunused-value
^
unused.C:10:4: warning: statement has no effect [-Wunused-value]
0; // -Wunused-value
^
unused.C:11:16: warning: statement has no effect [-Wunused-value]
INT64_MIN + 0; // -Wunused-value
^
GCC 6 lost the first two warnings:
unused.C: In function 'int main()':
unused.C:7:12: warning: statement has no effect [-Wunused-value]
INT64_MAX; // -Wunused-value
^
unused.C:8:12: warning: statement has no effect [-Wunused-value]
INT64_MAX; // -Wunused-value
^
unused.C:9:4: warning: statement has no effect [-Wunused-value]
1; // -Wunused-value
^
unused.C:10:4: warning: statement has no effect [-Wunused-value]
0; // -Wunused-value
^
unused.C:11:13: warning: statement has no effect [-Wunused-value]
INT64_MIN + 0; // -Wunused-value
^
Then GCC 9 lost the next two:
unused.C: In function 'int main()':
unused.C:9:3: warning: statement has no effect [-Wunused-value]
9 | 1; // -Wunused-value
| ^
unused.C:10:3: warning: statement has no effect [-Wunused-value]
10 | 0; // -Wunused-value
| ^
unused.C:11:13: warning: statement has no effect [-Wunused-value]
11 | INT64_MIN + 0; // -Wunused-value
| ^
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/77299] [9/10/11/12 Regression] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants due macro tracking from system headers
[not found] <bug-77299-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2021-11-22 9:58 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-11-22 10:05 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 10:06 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-22 10:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
For the INT64_MIN case:
# 1 "unused.C"
int main()
{
# 5 "unused.C" 3 4
(-9223372036854775807L -1)
# 5 "unused.C"
;
}
GCC 5 warned, but we lost the warning with r230365
For the INT64_MAX case:
# 3 "unused.C"
int main()
{
# 5 "unused.C" 3 4
(9223372036854775807L)
# 5 "unused.C"
;
}
GCC 8 warned, but we lost the warning with r267272
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/77299] [9/10/11/12 Regression] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants due macro tracking from system headers
[not found] <bug-77299-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2021-11-22 10:05 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-11-22 10:06 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 10:08 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-22 10:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> GCC 5 warned, but we lost the warning with r230365
That was "Merge C++ delayed folding branch."
> GCC 8 warned, but we lost the warning with r267272
And that was "C++: more location wrapper nodes (PR c++/43064, PR c++/43486)"
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/77299] [9/10/11/12 Regression] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants due macro tracking from system headers
[not found] <bug-77299-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2021-11-22 10:06 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-11-22 10:08 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 11:03 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-22 10:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
If it weren't for those *_MIN macros or NULL in C, we could have a hack that we
ignore system headers flag from macro locus if a macro in system headers
expands to a single token (e.g. in C++ NULL expands to __null or INT_MAX to
0x7fffffff etc. So, do we want instead some pragma to temporarily do the
opposite of #pragma GCC system_header and another one to undo it? Because
deciding what warning/error should be reported against the header that defines
a macro and what against the uses of the macro is otherwise extremely specific
to a particular diagnostics and how exactly the macros look like.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/77299] [9/10/11/12 Regression] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants due macro tracking from system headers
[not found] <bug-77299-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2021-11-22 10:08 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-11-22 11:03 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 11:18 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-22 11:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> So, do we want instead some pragma to temporarily do the
> opposite of #pragma GCC system_header and another one to undo it?
Something like PR 80472?
That would solve a number of libstdc++ bugs, like PR 58876.
And maybe PR 87614.
See also PR 43167 which is related to the general problem, but probably
wouldn't be helped by your suggestion unless we made 99% of libstdc++ headers
non-system headers and just treated small regions as "system headers".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/77299] [9/10/11/12 Regression] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants due macro tracking from system headers
[not found] <bug-77299-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2021-11-22 11:03 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-11-22 11:18 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-22 10:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-22 11:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
For the "NULL hiding pedwarn about invalid C++11 code in C++98" case from PR
103347
#include <cstddef>
struct test {
void *x = NULL; //invalid in C++03 mode
};
int main() {}
The missing warning regression started with r186977, when
-ftrack-macro-expansion=2 became the default.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/77299] [9/10/11/12 Regression] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants due macro tracking from system headers
[not found] <bug-77299-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2021-11-22 11:18 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-03-22 10:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-27 9:36 ` [Bug c++/77299] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-03-22 10:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/77299] [10/11/12/13 Regression] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants due macro tracking from system headers
[not found] <bug-77299-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2022-03-22 10:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-05-27 9:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-28 10:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-07 10:31 ` [Bug c++/77299] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-27 9:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|9.5 |10.4
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 9 branch is being closed
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/77299] [10/11/12/13 Regression] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants due macro tracking from system headers
[not found] <bug-77299-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2022-05-27 9:36 ` [Bug c++/77299] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-06-28 10:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-07 10:31 ` [Bug c++/77299] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-06-28 10:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|10.4 |10.5
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/77299] [11/12/13/14 Regression] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants due macro tracking from system headers
[not found] <bug-77299-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2022-06-28 10:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-07-07 10:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-07-07 10:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77299
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|10.5 |11.5
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 10 branch is being closed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-07-07 10:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <bug-77299-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2021-08-27 18:49 ` [Bug c++/77299] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-08-27 18:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 9:35 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 9:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 9:38 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 9:52 ` [Bug c++/77299] [9/10/11/12 Regression] No warning for unused "INT64_MAX" and similar constants due macro tracking from system headers pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 9:58 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 10:05 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 10:06 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 10:08 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 11:03 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-22 11:18 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-22 10:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-27 9:36 ` [Bug c++/77299] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-28 10:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-07 10:31 ` [Bug c++/77299] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.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).