From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 63031 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2018 18:33:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 63020 invoked by uid 89); 8 Dec 2018 18:33:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-26.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,GIT_PATCH_0,GIT_PATCH_1,GIT_PATCH_2,GIT_PATCH_3,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=feet, relating, villevoutilainengmailcom, sk:villev X-HELO: mail-oi1-f173.google.com Received: from mail-oi1-f173.google.com (HELO mail-oi1-f173.google.com) (209.85.167.173) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 08 Dec 2018 18:33:07 +0000 Received: by mail-oi1-f173.google.com with SMTP id a77so5975453oii.5 for ; Sat, 08 Dec 2018 10:33:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2I4SUBuF8YON5dTu7Sq9voSCf3JshPtd7f/dV2im6hE=; b=okHJbh32PiIlyiTEMmIkvYCjTxMGDxC+Bd6/IQ1GwZ1yBCvC+elRmWAHXefG+VPP8h i5i5THMYemtNmSFx/EXVoN3a+JfYd3/sfecSDRExwVO0fUeEXn7Zplo/YpnaAgQerr2U ghhnjdIGdkCsWKxQSkjrjHVdxeuu1LdFdpqpNQYnmTHb3oi/pEgjaQMbEkV1pYWDaR7+ gCTGDXyqEbx+ga6TsHWOKNtIllOq/fx3grp0MhLSTQp3G7FnkzCxykCDdfqLvd4xSXiK YDATE2UFKTymtHSCx2AHZV/AE2cARDfeenIqxQXHOHOT3Q5WBcOsk7bF1hpxfKne1oy1 QnQA== MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181208165817.GU12380@tucnak> In-Reply-To: From: Ville Voutilainen Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2018 18:33:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: C++ PATCH for c++/88136, -Wdeprecated-copy too noisy To: Jason Merrill Cc: Jakub Jelinek , gcc-patches List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-SW-Source: 2018-12/txt/msg00524.txt.bz2 On Sat, 8 Dec 2018 at 20:05, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > > New compiler releases will usually include new warnings that require > > some code modification to accommodate. Why is this one particularly > > problematic? > > I don't think it's any more problematic than any other warning that > introduces new errors for fools that build with -Wall and -Werror. > But considering that those errors are false positives, and that > turning them off will in some cases require writing boiler-plate > (defaulted assignments), I would merely prefer having another release > round to get fixes for my codebase out in the wild. For what it's worth, I find it unfortunate that this deprecation and its resulting warnings end up making the decision on whether a "rule of 5" must be followed; correct code needs to be adjusted to cope with a fairly stylistic matter, with false positives and all. I'll vote with my feet: diff --git a/mkspecs/features/qt_common.prf b/mkspecs/features/qt_common.prf index 4ad9946..3ba7eff 100644 --- a/mkspecs/features/qt_common.prf +++ b/mkspecs/features/qt_common.prf @@ -89,6 +89,8 @@ clang { greaterThan(QT_GCC_MAJOR_VERSION, 5): QMAKE_CXXFLAGS_WARN_ON += -Wshift-overflow=2 -Wduplicated-cond # GCC 7 has a lot of false positives relating to this, so disable completely greaterThan(QT_GCC_MAJOR_VERSION, 6): QMAKE_CXXFLAGS_WARN_ON += -Wno-stringop-overflow + # GCC 9 has a lot of false positives relating to this, so disable completely + greaterThan(QT_GCC_MAJOR_VERSION, 8): QMAKE_CXXFLAGS_WARN_ON += -Wno-deprecated-copy }