From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 98392 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2016 11:39:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 94992 invoked by uid 89); 30 Nov 2016 11:39:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:888, H*F:U*palves, HCc:D*ca, our X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:38:50 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A09C3D943; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:38:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn03.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.3]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uAUBclgM026551; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 06:38:48 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Fix mismatched struct vs class tags. To: John Baldwin References: <20161123200652.89209-1-jhb@FreeBSD.org> <5282476.671uSJnE6M@ralph.baldwin.cx> <1f8967dd-3a56-8c1e-6ad2-b47b101e90ec@redhat.com> <1573845.CKxfuZpZBq@ralph.baldwin.cx> Cc: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <31fa3dbd-e1d1-1fd2-7774-8bc82fd8b37d@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:39:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1573845.CKxfuZpZBq@ralph.baldwin.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00971.txt.bz2 On 11/24/2016 07:15 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Thursday, November 24, 2016 06:50:30 PM Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 11/24/2016 05:45 PM, John Baldwin wrote: >> >>> Ok. At the moment we don't have a clang-specific warning set, but if we >>> add one we can add this to that. >> >> We likely don't need one. Our infrustruture checks whether a >> warning works before enabling it. See gdb/warning.m4. > > Hmmm. The only odd case I can think of is -Wunused-function. Right now > clang triggers warnings when VEC() is used, so ideally -Wunused-function Yeah, I still believe that's a clang bug, and clang developers seem to agree: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=22712 > would only be present for GCC and not for clang. I can look at adding > other -Wno-foo warnings for clang things we wish to ignore however. Thanks, Pedro Alves