PR 17947 bad warning with implicit conversion and __attribute__((deprecated))

PR 17947 bad warning with implicit conversion and __attribute__((deprecated))

[Manuel López-Ibáñez]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 821 bytes --]

:ADDPATCH toplev / c++:

The Wdeprecated-declarations warning is using %qs to print the name of
a declaration. This produces funny results such as "operator 1" when
it should say "Foo::operator int()". This patch replaces %qs with %qD
and updates current testcases. I wasn't able to find what is the
difference between %qD, %q+D and %q#D, so I am not sure if this is the
right choice.

Bootstrapped and regression tested with --enable-languages=all on
i686-pc-linux-gnu.

OK for mainline?

2007-01-18  Manuel Lopez-Ibanez  <manu@gcc.gnu.org>
  PR c++/17947
  * toplev.c (warn_deprecated_use): Use %qD instead of %qs to print
the name of the declared identifier.

testsuite/
  PR c++/17947
  * g++.dg/warn/deprecated.C: Update warning output.
  * g++.dg/warn/deprecated-2.C: Likewise.
  * g++.dg/warn/deprecated-3.C: New.

[-- Attachment #2: wdeprecated.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 4483 bytes --]

Index: gcc/toplev.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/toplev.c	(revision 120783)
+++ gcc/toplev.c	(working copy)
@@ -901,9 +901,8 @@ warn_deprecated_use (tree node)
     {
       expanded_location xloc = expand_location (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (node));
       warning (OPT_Wdeprecated_declarations,
-	       "%qs is deprecated (declared at %s:%d)",
-	       IDENTIFIER_POINTER (DECL_NAME (node)),
-	       xloc.file, xloc.line);
+	       "%qD is deprecated (declared at %s:%d)",
+	       node, xloc.file, xloc.line);
     }
   else if (TYPE_P (node))
     {
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/deprecated-2.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/deprecated-2.C	(revision 120783)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/deprecated-2.C	(working copy)
@@ -7,5 +7,5 @@ void func(void);
 void func(void) __attribute__((deprecated));
 
 void f(void) {
-  func(); /* { dg-warning "'func' is deprecated" } */
+  func(); /* { dg-warning "'void func\\(\\)' is deprecated" } */
 }
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/deprecated.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/deprecated.C	(revision 120783)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/deprecated.C	(working copy)
@@ -50,13 +50,13 @@ int func1()
    int x __attribute__ ((deprecated));
    int y __attribute__ ((__deprecated__));
    int z;
-   int (*pf)() = f1;			/* { dg-warning "'f1' is deprecated" "" } */
+   int (*pf)() = f1;			/* { dg-warning "'INT1 f1\\(\\)' is deprecated" "" } */
 
    z = w + x + y + g1 + g2 + g3;	/* { dg-warning "'x' is deprecated" "" } */
    					/* { dg-warning "'y' is deprecated" "y" { target *-*-* } 55 } */
    					/* { dg-warning "'g2' is deprecated" "g2" { target *-*-* } 55 } */
    					/* { dg-warning "'g3' is deprecated" "g3" { target *-*-* } 55 } */
-   return f1(); 			/* { dg-warning "'f1' is deprecated" "f1" } */
+   return f1(); 			/* { dg-warning "'INT1 f1\\(\\)' is deprecated" "f1" } */
 }
 
 int func2(S1 *p)
@@ -64,14 +64,14 @@ int func2(S1 *p)
   S1 lp;
   
   if (p->field1)
-     return p->field2;			/* { dg-warning "'field2' is deprecated" "" } */
-  else if (lp.field4)			/* { dg-warning "'field4' is deprecated" "" } */
+     return p->field2;			/* { dg-warning "'S1::field2' is deprecated" "" } */
+  else if (lp.field4)			/* { dg-warning "'S1::field4' is deprecated" "" } */
      return p->field3;
   
   p->u1.field5 = g1 + p->field7;
-  p->u2.field9;				/* { dg-warning "'u2' is deprecated" "" } */
-  return p->u1.field6 + p->field8;	/* { dg-warning "'field6' is deprecated" "" } */
-  					/* { dg-warning "'field8' is deprecated" "field8" { target *-*-* } 73 } */
+  p->u2.field9;				/* { dg-warning "'S1::u2' is deprecated" "" } */
+  return p->u1.field6 + p->field8;	/* { dg-warning "'S1::<anonymous union>::field6' is deprecated" "" } */
+  					/* { dg-warning "'S1::field8' is deprecated" "field8" { target *-*-* } 73 } */
 }
 
 struct SS1 {
@@ -104,13 +104,13 @@ inline void T::member1(int) {}
 
 int T::member3(T *p)
 {
-  p->member1(1);			/* { dg-warning "'member1' is deprecated" "" } */
-  (*p).member1(2);			/* { dg-warning "'member1' is deprecated" "" } */
-  p->member2(1);			/* { dg-warning "'member2' is deprecated" "" } */
-  (*p).member2(2);			/* { dg-warning "'member2' is deprecated" "" } */
+  p->member1(1);			/* { dg-warning "'void T::member1\\(int\\)' is deprecated" "" } */
+  (*p).member1(2);			/* { dg-warning "'void T::member1\\(int\\)' is deprecated" "" } */
+  p->member2(1);			/* { dg-warning "'void T::member2\\(INT1\\)' is deprecated" "" } */
+  (*p).member2(2);			/* { dg-warning "'void T::member2\\(INT1\\)' is deprecated" "" } */
   p->member3(p);
   (*p).member3(p);
-  return f1(); 				/* { dg-warning "'f1' is deprecated" "" } */
+  return f1(); 				/* { dg-warning "'INT1 f1\\(\\)' is deprecated" "" } */
 }
 #endif
 
Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/deprecated-3.C
===================================================================
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/deprecated-3.C	(revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/deprecated-3.C	(revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+/* PR 17947 bad warning with implicit conversion and __attribute__((deprecated)) */
+/* { dg-do compile } */
+/* { dg-options "" } */
+
+struct Foo
+{
+  operator int() __attribute__((deprecated));
+};
+
+void g(void)
+{
+  Foo f;
+  (int)f; // { dg-warning "warning: 'Foo::operator int\\(\\)' is deprecated \\(declared at" }
+}

Re: PR 17947 bad warning with implicit conversion and __attribute__((deprecated))

[Ian Lance Taylor]

"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <lopezibanez@gmail.com> writes:

> 2007-01-18  Manuel Lopez-Ibanez  <manu@gcc.gnu.org>
>   PR c++/17947
>   * toplev.c (warn_deprecated_use): Use %qD instead of %qs to print
> the name of the declared identifier.
> 
> testsuite/
>   PR c++/17947
>   * g++.dg/warn/deprecated.C: Update warning output.
>   * g++.dg/warn/deprecated-2.C: Likewise.
>   * g++.dg/warn/deprecated-3.C: New.

This is OK.

Thanks.

:REVIEWMAIL:

Ian