From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
To: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
gcc-patches List <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: C++ PATCH for c++/88136, -Wdeprecated-copy too noisy
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2018 17:53:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADzB+2kYU7S9y=CcgKr_7vuwRqsv11Q7HVhRrN_dMudT-1aEnA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFk2RUYYLv-YguwazLTCxQMHwxDQRivVKqj_rxn4cr1eKLC1dw@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 12:17 PM Ville Voutilainen
<ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 at 18:58, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > g++ -c -pipe -O2 -fPIC -std=c++1z -fvisibility=hidden
> > > -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections
> > > -fno-exceptions -Wall -W -Wvla -Wdate-time -Wshift-overflow=2
> >
> > -W is an alias to -Wextra.
>
> Yeah. Jason, I seem to have code that user-provides a copy constructor (seemingly for no particular reason),
> doesn't bother declaring a copy assignment operator, and still breaks magnificently. :) There is no bug
> in it; the assignment works as expected, so that's a false positive. I am going to suggest taking this warning
> out of -Wextra and making it completely separate for GCC 9.
The documented policy for -Wall is,
This enables all the warnings about constructions that some users
consider questionable, and that are easy to avoid (or modify to
prevent the warning), even in conjunction with macros.
...
Note that some warning flags are not implied by '-Wall'. Some of
them warn about constructions that users generally do not consider
questionable, but which occasionally you might wish to check for;
others warn about constructions that are necessary or hard to avoid
in some cases, and there is no simple way to modify the code to
suppress the warning.
It seems to me that this warning qualifies for -Wall under these
guidelines. Providing a copy constructor without a matching
assignment operator is definitely suspect; the false positive only
comes in because, as you say, there was no good reason to provide the
copy constructor for Private. And it's easy to avoid the warning by
declaring a defaulted assignment operator, if ABI concerns preclude
removing the constructor.
New compiler releases will usually include new warnings that require
some code modification to accommodate. Why is this one particularly
problematic?
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-08 17:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-06 21:12 Jason Merrill
2018-12-08 16:46 ` Ville Voutilainen
2018-12-08 16:58 ` Jakub Jelinek
2018-12-08 17:17 ` Ville Voutilainen
2018-12-08 17:53 ` Jason Merrill [this message]
2018-12-08 18:05 ` Ville Voutilainen
2018-12-08 18:33 ` Ville Voutilainen
2018-12-12 14:52 ` Jason Merrill
2018-12-12 15:30 ` Ville Voutilainen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CADzB+2kYU7S9y=CcgKr_7vuwRqsv11Q7HVhRrN_dMudT-1aEnA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=ville.voutilainen@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).