* committed: remove redundant -Wall from -Warray-bounds (PR 82063) @ 2018-07-20 21:22 Martin Sebor 2018-07-24 9:24 ` Franz Sirl 2022-03-29 9:23 ` options: Remove 'gcc/c-family/c.opt:Warray-bounds' option definition record (was: committed: remove redundant -Wall from -Warray-bounds (PR 82063)) Thomas Schwinge 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Martin Sebor @ 2018-07-20 21:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gcc Patch List As the last observation in PR 82063 Jim points out that Both -Warray-bounds and -Warray-bounds= are listed in the c.opt file as being enabled by -Wall, but they are the same option, and it causes this one option to be processed twice in the C_handle_option_auto function in the generated options.c file. It gets set to the same value twice, so it does work as intended, but this is wasteful. I have removed the redundant -Wall from the first option and committed the change as obvious in r262912. Martin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: committed: remove redundant -Wall from -Warray-bounds (PR 82063) 2018-07-20 21:22 committed: remove redundant -Wall from -Warray-bounds (PR 82063) Martin Sebor @ 2018-07-24 9:24 ` Franz Sirl 2018-07-24 15:36 ` Martin Sebor 2022-03-29 9:23 ` options: Remove 'gcc/c-family/c.opt:Warray-bounds' option definition record (was: committed: remove redundant -Wall from -Warray-bounds (PR 82063)) Thomas Schwinge 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Franz Sirl @ 2018-07-24 9:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Sebor, Gcc Patch List Am 2018-07-20 um 23:22 schrieb Martin Sebor: > As the last observation in PR 82063 Jim points out that > > Â Both -Warray-bounds and -Warray-bounds= are listed in the c.opt > Â file as being enabled by -Wall, but they are the same option, > Â and it causes this one option to be processed twice in the > Â C_handle_option_auto function in the generated options.c file. > Â It gets set to the same value twice, so it does work as intended, > Â but this is wasteful. > > I have removed the redundant -Wall from the first option and > committed the change as obvious in r262912. Hi Martin, this looks related to PR 68845 and my patch in there. I never posted it to gcc-patches because I couldn't find a definitive answer on how options duplicated between common.opt and c-family/c.opt are supposed to be handled. For example, Warray-bounds in common.opt is a separate option (not an alias to Warray-bounds=), leading to separate enums for them. Is this intended? Warray-bounds seemed to be the only option with an equal sign doing it like that at that time. Now Wcast-align is doing the same... Can you shed some light on this? Franz ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: committed: remove redundant -Wall from -Warray-bounds (PR 82063) 2018-07-24 9:24 ` Franz Sirl @ 2018-07-24 15:36 ` Martin Sebor 2018-07-24 19:48 ` Franz Sirl 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Martin Sebor @ 2018-07-24 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Franz Sirl, Gcc Patch List On 07/24/2018 03:24 AM, Franz Sirl wrote: > Am 2018-07-20 um 23:22 schrieb Martin Sebor: >> As the last observation in PR 82063 Jim points out that >> >> Both -Warray-bounds and -Warray-bounds= are listed in the c.opt >> file as being enabled by -Wall, but they are the same option, >> and it causes this one option to be processed twice in the >> C_handle_option_auto function in the generated options.c file. >> It gets set to the same value twice, so it does work as intended, >> but this is wasteful. >> >> I have removed the redundant -Wall from the first option and >> committed the change as obvious in r262912. > > Hi Martin, > > this looks related to PR 68845 and my patch in there. I never posted it > to gcc-patches because I couldn't find a definitive answer on how > options duplicated between common.opt and c-family/c.opt are supposed to > be handled. > For example, Warray-bounds in common.opt is a separate option (not an > alias to Warray-bounds=), leading to separate enums for them. Is this > intended? Warray-bounds seemed to be the only option with an equal sign > doing it like that at that time. Now Wcast-align is doing the same... > > Can you shed some light on this? -Warray-bounds= (the form that takes an argument) was added in r219577. Before then, only the plain form existed. If I had to guess, the interplay between the two options (as opposed to making the latter an alias for the new option) wasn't considered. I didn't think of it until now either. Your patch seems like the right solution to me. Let me know if you will submit it. If not, I posted the patch below that touches this area and that will likely need updating so I can roll your change into it: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg01286.html Martin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: committed: remove redundant -Wall from -Warray-bounds (PR 82063) 2018-07-24 15:36 ` Martin Sebor @ 2018-07-24 19:48 ` Franz Sirl 2018-07-24 20:18 ` Martin Sebor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Franz Sirl @ 2018-07-24 19:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Sebor, Gcc Patch List Am 2018-07-24 um 17:35 schrieb Martin Sebor: > On 07/24/2018 03:24 AM, Franz Sirl wrote: >> Am 2018-07-20 um 23:22 schrieb Martin Sebor: >>> As the last observation in PR 82063 Jim points out that >>> >>>   Both -Warray-bounds and -Warray-bounds= are listed in the c.opt >>>   file as being enabled by -Wall, but they are the same option, >>>   and it causes this one option to be processed twice in the >>>   C_handle_option_auto function in the generated options.c file. >>>   It gets set to the same value twice, so it does work as intended, >>>   but this is wasteful. >>> >>> I have removed the redundant -Wall from the first option and >>> committed the change as obvious in r262912. >> >> Hi Martin, >> >> this looks related to PR 68845 and my patch in there. I never posted it >> to gcc-patches because I couldn't find a definitive answer on how >> options duplicated between common.opt and c-family/c.opt are supposed to >> be handled. >> For example, Warray-bounds in common.opt is a separate option (not an >> alias to Warray-bounds=), leading to separate enums for them. Is this >> intended? Warray-bounds seemed to be the only option with an equal sign >> doing it like that at that time. Now Wcast-align is doing the same... >> >> Can you shed some light on this? > > -Warray-bounds= (the form that takes an argument) was added in > r219577. Before then, only the plain form existed. If I had > to guess, the interplay between the two options (as opposed to > making the latter an alias for the new option) wasn't considered. > I didn't think of it until now either. Your patch seems like > the right solution to me. Let me know if you will submit it. > If not, I posted the patch below that touches this area and > that will likely need updating so I can roll your change into > it: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg01286.html I'll post a patch tomorrow, since I already have all the changes available and tested here. Note that one minor change with this patch is that with -fdiagnostics-show-option the message will show -Warray-bounds= (equal sign added) instead of -Warray-bounds. Franz ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: committed: remove redundant -Wall from -Warray-bounds (PR 82063) 2018-07-24 19:48 ` Franz Sirl @ 2018-07-24 20:18 ` Martin Sebor 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Martin Sebor @ 2018-07-24 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Franz Sirl, Gcc Patch List On 07/24/2018 01:48 PM, Franz Sirl wrote: > Am 2018-07-24 um 17:35 schrieb Martin Sebor: >> On 07/24/2018 03:24 AM, Franz Sirl wrote: >>> Am 2018-07-20 um 23:22 schrieb Martin Sebor: >>>> As the last observation in PR 82063 Jim points out that >>>> >>>> Both -Warray-bounds and -Warray-bounds= are listed in the c.opt >>>> file as being enabled by -Wall, but they are the same option, >>>> and it causes this one option to be processed twice in the >>>> C_handle_option_auto function in the generated options.c file. >>>> It gets set to the same value twice, so it does work as intended, >>>> but this is wasteful. >>>> >>>> I have removed the redundant -Wall from the first option and >>>> committed the change as obvious in r262912. >>> >>> Hi Martin, >>> >>> this looks related to PR 68845 and my patch in there. I never posted it >>> to gcc-patches because I couldn't find a definitive answer on how >>> options duplicated between common.opt and c-family/c.opt are supposed to >>> be handled. >>> For example, Warray-bounds in common.opt is a separate option (not an >>> alias to Warray-bounds=), leading to separate enums for them. Is this >>> intended? Warray-bounds seemed to be the only option with an equal sign >>> doing it like that at that time. Now Wcast-align is doing the same... >>> >>> Can you shed some light on this? >> >> -Warray-bounds= (the form that takes an argument) was added in >> r219577. Before then, only the plain form existed. If I had >> to guess, the interplay between the two options (as opposed to >> making the latter an alias for the new option) wasn't considered. >> I didn't think of it until now either. Your patch seems like >> the right solution to me. Let me know if you will submit it. >> If not, I posted the patch below that touches this area and >> that will likely need updating so I can roll your change into >> it: >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg01286.html > > I'll post a patch tomorrow, since I already have all the changes > available and tested here. > > Note that one minor change with this patch is that with > -fdiagnostics-show-option the message will show -Warray-bounds= (equal > sign added) instead of -Warray-bounds. That should be fine. Martin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* options: Remove 'gcc/c-family/c.opt:Warray-bounds' option definition record (was: committed: remove redundant -Wall from -Warray-bounds (PR 82063)) 2018-07-20 21:22 committed: remove redundant -Wall from -Warray-bounds (PR 82063) Martin Sebor 2018-07-24 9:24 ` Franz Sirl @ 2022-03-29 9:23 ` Thomas Schwinge 2022-03-29 18:00 ` Joseph Myers 1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Thomas Schwinge @ 2022-03-29 9:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Sebor, gcc-patches, Joseph Myers [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1368 bytes --] Hi! On 2018-07-20T15:22:23-0600, Martin Sebor <msebor@gmail.com> wrote: > As the last observation in PR 82063 Jim points out that > > Both -Warray-bounds and -Warray-bounds= are listed in the c.opt > file as being enabled by -Wall, but they are the same option, > and it causes this one option to be processed twice in the > C_handle_option_auto function in the generated options.c file. > It gets set to the same value twice, so it does work as intended, > but this is wasteful. > > I have removed the redundant -Wall from the first option and > committed the change as obvious in r262912. That's r262912/commit 0d7f90652080c42cddca6f9b68f6895218c70880 "PR middle-end/82063 - issues with arguments enabled by -Wall": | --- gcc/c-family/c.opt | +++ gcc/c-family/c.opt | [...] | Warray-bounds | -LangEnabledBy(C ObjC C++ LTO ObjC++,Wall) | +LangEnabledBy(C ObjC C++ LTO ObjC++) | ; in common.opt | | Warray-bounds= OK to push the attached "options: Remove 'gcc/c-family/c.opt:Warray-bounds' option definition record"? Grüße Thomas ----------------- Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955 [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #2: 0001-options-Remove-gcc-c-family-c.opt-Warray-bounds-opti.patch --] [-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1436 bytes --] From 15b8d3d6265529bcab74c81b742cd4d1ef2ef37b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:17:23 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] options: Remove 'gcc/c-family/c.opt:Warray-bounds' option definition record A one-argument form of the 'LangEnabledBy' option property isn't defined, and effectively appears to be a no-op. Removing that one, the 'gcc/c-family/c.opt:Warray-bounds' option definition record becomes empty, and doesn't add anything over 'gcc/common.opt:Warray-bounds', and may thus be removed entirely. This only changes 'build-gcc/gcc/optionlist' accordingly, but no other generated files. Clean-up after r262912/commit 0d7f90652080c42cddca6f9b68f6895218c70880 "PR middle-end/82063 - issues with arguments enabled by -Wall". gcc/c-family/ * c.opt (Warray-bounds): Remove. --- gcc/c-family/c.opt | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c.opt b/gcc/c-family/c.opt index 790d47caf0a..3c2ec7744b0 100644 --- a/gcc/c-family/c.opt +++ b/gcc/c-family/c.opt @@ -342,10 +342,6 @@ Wno-alloca-larger-than C ObjC C++ LTO ObjC++ Alias(Walloca-larger-than=,18446744073709551615EiB,none) Warning Disable Walloca-larger-than= warning. Equivalent to Walloca-larger-than=<SIZE_MAX> or larger. -Warray-bounds -LangEnabledBy(C ObjC C++ LTO ObjC++) -; in common.opt - Warray-bounds= LangEnabledBy(C ObjC C++ LTO ObjC++,Wall,1,0) ; in common.opt -- 2.25.1 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: options: Remove 'gcc/c-family/c.opt:Warray-bounds' option definition record (was: committed: remove redundant -Wall from -Warray-bounds (PR 82063)) 2022-03-29 9:23 ` options: Remove 'gcc/c-family/c.opt:Warray-bounds' option definition record (was: committed: remove redundant -Wall from -Warray-bounds (PR 82063)) Thomas Schwinge @ 2022-03-29 18:00 ` Joseph Myers 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Joseph Myers @ 2022-03-29 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Schwinge; +Cc: Martin Sebor, gcc-patches On Tue, 29 Mar 2022, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > | --- gcc/c-family/c.opt > | +++ gcc/c-family/c.opt > | [...] > | Warray-bounds > | -LangEnabledBy(C ObjC C++ LTO ObjC++,Wall) > | +LangEnabledBy(C ObjC C++ LTO ObjC++) > | ; in common.opt > | > | Warray-bounds= > > OK to push the attached "options: Remove > 'gcc/c-family/c.opt:Warray-bounds' option definition record"? OK. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-03-29 18:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2018-07-20 21:22 committed: remove redundant -Wall from -Warray-bounds (PR 82063) Martin Sebor 2018-07-24 9:24 ` Franz Sirl 2018-07-24 15:36 ` Martin Sebor 2018-07-24 19:48 ` Franz Sirl 2018-07-24 20:18 ` Martin Sebor 2022-03-29 9:23 ` options: Remove 'gcc/c-family/c.opt:Warray-bounds' option definition record (was: committed: remove redundant -Wall from -Warray-bounds (PR 82063)) Thomas Schwinge 2022-03-29 18:00 ` Joseph Myers
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).