From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
To: Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] warning control by group and location (PR 74765)
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 12:19:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mptcztc1l0i.fsf@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <abc6549f-7a75-7266-04f3-9735980b447b@gmail.com> (Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches's message of "Mon, 24 May 2021 18:42:35 -0600")
Thanks for doing this.
Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> […]
> On 5/24/21 5:08 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> On Mon, 2021-05-24 at 16:02 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> Subsequent patches then replace invocations of the TREE_NO_WARNING()
>>> macro and the gimple_no_warning_p() and gimple_set_no_warning()
>>> functions throughout GCC with those and remove the legacy APIs to
>>> keep them from being accidentally reintroduced along with the
>>> problem.
>>> These are mostly mechanical changes, except that most of the new
>>> invocations also specify the option whose disposition to query for
>>> the expression or location, or which to enable or disable[2].
>>> The last function, copy_no_warning(), copies the disposition from
>>> one expression or location to another.
>>>
>>> A couple of design choices might be helpful to explain:
>>>
>>> First, introducing "warning groups" rather than controlling each
>>> individual warning is motivated by a) the fact that the latter
>>> would make avoiding redundant warnings for related problems
>>> cumbersome (e.g., after issuing a -Warray-bounds we want to
>>> suppress -Wstringop-overflow as well -Wstringop-overread for
>>> the same access and vice versa), and b) simplicity and efficiency
>>> of the implementation (mapping each option would require a more
>>> complex data structure like a bitmap).
>>>
>>> Second, using location_t to associate expressions/statements with
>>> the warning groups also turns out to be more useful in practice
>>> than a direct association between a tree or gimple*, and also
>>> simplifies managing the data structure. Trees and gimple* come
>>> and go across passes, and maintaining a mapping for them that
>>> accounts for the possibility of them being garbage-collected
>>> and the same addresses reused is less than straightforward.
>>
>> I find some of the terminology rather awkard due to it the negation
>> we're already using with TREE_NO_WARNING, in that we're turning on a
>> no_warning flag, and that this is a per-location/expr/stmt thing that's
>> different from the idea of enabling/disabling a specific warning
>> altogether (and the pragmas that control that). Sometimes the patches
>> refer to enabling/disabling warnings and I think I want "enabling" and
>> "disabling" to mean the thing the user does with -Wfoo and -Wno-foo.
>>
>> Would calling it a "warning suppression" or somesuch be more or less
>> klunky?
>
> I like warning suppression :) But I'm not sure where you suggest
> I use the phrase.
>
> I don't particularly care for the "no" in the API names either
> (existing or new) and would prefer a positive form. I considered
> enable_warning() and warning_enabled() but I chose the names I did
> because they're close to their established gimple namesakes. I'm
> fine changing them to the alternatives, or if you or someone else
> has a preference for different names I'm open to suggestions. Let
> me know.
Not my area, but FWIW, +1 for David's suggestion of
s/set_no_warning/suppress_warning/ or similar. As well as the
problem with the double negative in negated conditions, I always have to
remember whether TREE_NO_WARNING means that hasn't been anything to warn
about yet or whether we shouldn't warn in future.
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-27 11:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 98+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-24 22:02 Martin Sebor
2021-05-24 22:07 ` [PATCH 1/11] introduce xxx_no_warning APIs Martin Sebor
2021-05-24 22:09 ` [PATCH 2/11] use xxx_no_warning APIs in Ada Martin Sebor
2021-05-25 8:59 ` Eric Botcazou
2021-05-27 20:29 ` Martin Sebor
2021-05-24 22:10 ` [PATCH 3/11] use xxx_no_warning APIs in C Martin Sebor
2021-05-24 22:11 ` [PATCH 4/11] use xxx_no_warning APIs in C family Martin Sebor
2021-05-24 22:11 ` [PATCH 5/11] use xxx_no_warning APIs in C++ Martin Sebor
2021-05-24 22:12 ` [PATCH 6/11] use xxx_no_warning APIs in Fortran Martin Sebor
2021-05-24 22:13 ` [PATCH 7/11] " Martin Sebor
2021-05-24 22:14 ` [PATCH 8/11] use xxx_no_warning APIs in Objective-C Martin Sebor
2021-05-25 14:01 ` Iain Sandoe
2021-05-25 15:48 ` Martin Sebor
2021-05-25 15:56 ` Iain Sandoe
2021-05-24 22:15 ` [PATCH 9/11] use xxx_no_warning APIs in rl78 back end Martin Sebor
2021-05-24 22:16 ` [PATCH 10/11] use xxx_no_warning APIs in libcc1 Martin Sebor
2021-05-24 22:16 ` [PATCH 11/11] use xxx_no_warning APIs in the middle end Martin Sebor
2021-05-24 23:08 ` David Malcolm
2021-05-25 0:44 ` Martin Sebor
2021-05-24 23:08 ` [PATCH 0/11] warning control by group and location (PR 74765) David Malcolm
2021-05-25 0:42 ` Martin Sebor
2021-05-25 9:04 ` Richard Biener
2021-05-25 20:50 ` Martin Sebor
2021-05-27 11:19 ` Richard Sandiford [this message]
2021-05-27 16:41 ` Martin Sebor
2021-05-27 21:55 ` David Malcolm
2021-05-28 4:40 ` Jason Merrill
2021-06-04 21:27 ` [PATCH 0/13] v2 " Martin Sebor
2021-06-04 21:41 ` [PATCH 1/13] v2 [PATCH 1/13] Add support for per-location warning groups " Martin Sebor
2021-06-21 21:34 ` [PING][PATCH " Martin Sebor
2021-06-22 23:18 ` [PATCH " David Malcolm
2021-06-22 23:28 ` David Malcolm
2021-06-23 19:47 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-24 5:26 ` Jeff Law
2021-06-25 1:34 ` Martin Sebor
2021-09-01 19:35 ` Thomas Schwinge
2021-09-02 0:14 ` Martin Sebor
2021-09-03 19:16 ` Thomas Schwinge
2021-09-10 7:45 ` [PING] Don't maintain a warning spec for 'UNKNOWN_LOCATION'/'BUILTINS_LOCATION' [PR101574] (was: [PATCH 1/13] v2 [PATCH 1/13] Add support for per-location warning groups (PR 74765)) Thomas Schwinge
2021-09-13 14:00 ` Jeff Law
2021-11-09 14:18 ` Use 'location_hash' for 'gcc/diagnostic-spec.h:nowarn_map' " Thomas Schwinge
2021-11-15 15:01 ` [ping] Use 'location_hash' for 'gcc/diagnostic-spec.h:nowarn_map' Thomas Schwinge
2021-11-15 16:43 ` Martin Sebor
2021-11-09 10:28 ` Get rid of infinite recursion for 'typedef' used with GTY-marked 'gcc/diagnostic-spec.h:nowarn_map' [PR101204] (was: [PATCH 1/13] v2 [PATCH 1/13] Add support for per-location warning groups (PR 74765)) Thomas Schwinge
2021-11-09 10:54 ` Richard Biener
2021-11-09 12:25 ` Get rid of infinite recursion for 'typedef' used with GTY-marked 'gcc/diagnostic-spec.h:nowarn_map' [PR101204, PR103157] Thomas Schwinge
2021-11-10 4:52 ` Get rid of infinite recursion for 'typedef' used with GTY-marked 'gcc/diagnostic-spec.h:nowarn_map' [PR101204] Martin Sebor
2021-11-24 10:28 ` 'gengtype' (was: Get rid of infinite recursion for 'typedef' used with GTY-marked 'gcc/diagnostic-spec.h:nowarn_map' [PR101204]) Thomas Schwinge
2021-06-04 21:41 ` [PATCH 2/13] v2 Use new per-location warning APIs in Ada Martin Sebor
2021-06-24 5:07 ` Jeff Law
2021-06-28 21:20 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-04 21:41 ` [PATCH 3/13] v2 Use new per-location warning APIs in C front end Martin Sebor
2021-06-21 21:35 ` [PING][PATCH " Martin Sebor
2021-06-24 5:09 ` [PATCH " Jeff Law
2021-06-25 1:35 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-04 21:42 ` [PATCH 4/13] v2 Use new per-location warning APIs in C family code Martin Sebor
2021-06-21 21:35 ` [PING][PATCH " Martin Sebor
2021-06-24 5:06 ` [PATCH " Jeff Law
2021-06-25 1:36 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-04 21:42 ` [PATCH 5/13] v2 Use new per-location warning APIs in the RL78 back end Martin Sebor
2021-06-24 5:06 ` Jeff Law
2021-06-04 21:42 ` [PATCH 6/13] v2 Use new per-location warning APIs in the C++ front end Martin Sebor
2021-06-21 21:37 ` [PING][PATCH " Martin Sebor
2021-06-24 5:12 ` [PATCH " Jeff Law
2021-06-25 1:38 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-04 21:42 ` [PATCH 7/13] v2 Use new per-location warning APIs in the FORTRAN " Martin Sebor
2021-06-21 21:42 ` [PING][PATCH " Martin Sebor
2021-06-24 5:05 ` [PATCH " Jeff Law
2021-06-28 21:21 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-04 21:42 ` [PATCH 8/13] v2 Use new per-location warning APIs in libcc1 Martin Sebor
2021-06-24 5:04 ` Jeff Law
2021-06-28 21:22 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-04 21:43 ` [PATCH 9/13] v2 Use new per-location warning APIs in LTO Martin Sebor
2021-06-21 21:54 ` [PING][PATCH " Martin Sebor
2021-06-24 9:32 ` Richard Biener
2021-06-24 15:27 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-25 7:46 ` Richard Biener
2021-06-24 5:03 ` [PATCH " Jeff Law
2021-06-04 21:43 ` [PATCH 10/13] v2 Use new per-location warning APIs in the middle end Martin Sebor
2021-06-21 21:58 ` [PING][PATCH " Martin Sebor
2021-06-24 5:15 ` [PATCH " Jeff Law
2021-06-25 1:40 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-04 21:43 ` [PATCH 11/13] v2 Use new per-location warning APIs in the Objective-C front end Martin Sebor
2021-06-24 5:02 ` Jeff Law
2021-06-28 21:22 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-04 21:43 ` [PATCH 12/13] v2 Remove TREE_NO_WARNING and gimple*no_warning* APIs Martin Sebor
2021-06-24 5:01 ` Jeff Law
2021-06-04 21:43 ` [PATCH 13/13] v2 Add regression tests for PR 74765 and 74762 Martin Sebor
2021-06-24 4:56 ` Jeff Law
2021-06-28 21:23 ` Martin Sebor
2021-06-15 1:29 ` [PING][PATCH 0/13] v2 warning control by group and location (PR 74765) Martin Sebor
2021-07-17 20:36 ` [PATCH " Jan-Benedict Glaw
2021-07-19 15:08 ` Martin Sebor
2021-07-28 11:14 ` Andrew Burgess
2021-07-28 16:16 ` Martin Sebor
2021-07-29 8:26 ` Andrew Burgess
2021-07-29 14:41 ` Martin Sebor
2021-05-30 2:06 ` [PATCH 0/11] " Jeff Law
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=mptcztc1l0i.fsf@arm.com \
--to=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
/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).