From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hamza.pair.com (hamza.pair.com [209.68.5.143]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C51283858C50 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 12:32:03 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org C51283858C50 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pfeifer.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pfeifer.com Received: from hamza.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63D6A33E65; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 08:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from naga.localdomain (194-166-101-219.adsl.highway.telekom.at [194.166.101.219]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B78FE33EA0; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 08:32:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 13:32:01 +0100 (CET) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Martin_Li=A8ka?= cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Jakub Jelinek Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: document sanitizers can trigger warnings In-Reply-To: <9321d38e-a185-5505-62a5-574d64446798@suse.cz> Message-ID: <02229763-c665-5295-89d1-48c4d47c54ca@pfeifer.com> References: <9321d38e-a185-5505-62a5-574d64446798@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323328-2037416535-1667478723=:6261" X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.10 on 209.68.5.143 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323328-2037416535-1667478723=:6261 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Hi Martin, On Wed, 26 Oct 2022, Martin Liška wrote: > +Note the enabled sanitizer options tend to increase a false-positive rate > +of selected warnings, most notably @option{-Wmaybe-uninitialized}. > +And thus we recommend to disable @option{-Werror}. I've been sitting muling over this and here is what I'm wondering might be a possible alternative? Note that sanitzers tend to increase the rate of false positive warnings, most notably those around @option{-Wmaybe-uninitialized}. We recommend against combining @option{-Werror} and [the use of] sanitzers. Rationale for the second sentence: Disabling a warning that is off by default confused my mental model (and maybe those of other readers). :-) What do you think? Gerald --8323328-2037416535-1667478723=:6261--