From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 105129 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2017 13:39:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 105092 invoked by uid 89); 27 Mar 2017 13:39:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=43am, 43AM, Hx-languages-length:3119, glass X-HELO: mail.ud10.udmedia.de Received: from ud10.udmedia.de (HELO mail.ud10.udmedia.de) (194.117.254.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 13:39:43 +0000 Received: (qmail 9775 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2017 15:39:38 +0200 Received: from ip5b405f78.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de (HELO x4) (ud10?360p3@91.64.95.120) by mail.ud10.udmedia.de with ESMTPSA (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 27 Mar 2017 15:39:38 +0200 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 13:39:00 -0000 From: Markus Trippelsdorf To: Steve Kargl Cc: Jerry DeLisle , gfortran , GCC Development Subject: Re: Warning annoyances in list_read.c Message-ID: <20170327133937.GB294@x4> References: <20170326184534.GA18723@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20170327023050.GA20895@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20170327065843.GA294@x4> <20170327132605.GB24312@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170327132605.GB24312@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> X-SW-Source: 2017-03/txt/msg00149.txt.bz2 On 2017.03.27 at 06:26 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 08:58:43AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2017.03.26 at 19:30 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 06:45:07PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote: > > > > On 03/26/2017 11:45 AM, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 11:27:59AM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> +#pragma GCC diagnostic push > > > > >> +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wimplicit-fallthrough" > > > > > > > > > > IMNSHO, the correct fix is to complain loudly to whomever > > > > > added -Wimplicit-fallthrough to compiler options. It should > > > > > be removed (especially if is has been added to -Wall). > > > > > > > > > > You can also probably add -Wno-implicit-fallthrough to > > > > > libgfortran/configure.ac at > > > > > > > > > > # Add -Wall -fno-repack-arrays -fno-underscoring if we are using GCC. > > > > > if test "x$GCC" = "xyes"; then > > > > > AM_FCFLAGS="-I . -Wall -Werror -fimplicit-none -fno-repack-arrays -fno-underscoring" > > > > > > > > > > > > > Problem I have is I don't know who to complain to. I think there is a bit of a > > > > glass wall going on here anyway, so what would be the point of complaining if > > > > the retrievers of the message all have the ON-OFF switch in the OFF position. > > > > (After all, I do not have a PHD, I am not a computer science graduate, why > > > > bother looking down ones nose at a low life such as myself, OMG its an engineer, > > > > what the hell does he know.) > > > > > > > > Maybe these warnings are being turned on as a matter of policy, but truth is, > > > > when I build 50 times a day, the warnings flying by are masking the errors or > > > > other warnings that may be important. For example, I inadvertently passed a ptr > > > > to a function rather than the *ptr. > > > > > > > > The warning that ensued flew by mixed in with all the other crap warnings and I > > > > did not see it. That cost me wasted cycle time (remember, I am not an expert and > > > > should not be expected to see such things. Hell, for that matter I should not > > > > even be doing any of this work. :) > > > > > > > > > > This option is clearly enforceing someone's preferred markup of > > > adding a comment to explicitly note a fall through. Candidate > > > individual to complain to > > > > > > If he added a new option affecting libgfortran, then he should > > > fix up libgfortran. > > > > He didn't add the warning to specifically annoy fortran developers. > > It is trivial to add seven gcc_fallthrough() or breaks for someone who > > knows the code and the person who added the warning obviously doesn't. > > > > I completely disagree with your viewpoint here. If someone turns > on a silly warning, that someone should fix all places within the > tree that triggers that warning. There is ZERO value to this warning, > but added work for others to clean up that someone's mess. Well, a missing break is a bug. No? This warning has already uncovered several bugs in the tree, so calling it silly makes no sense. -- Markus