RE: [PATCH 1/1] gdb, testsuite: Adapt gdb.base/callfuncs.exp for new clang warnings.

["Willgerodt, Felix" <felix.willgerodt@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>
> Sent: Montag, 18. Juli 2022 15:28
> To: Willgerodt, Felix <felix.willgerodt@intel.com>; Tom Tromey
> <tom@tromey.com>; Felix Willgerodt via Gdb-patches <gdb-
> patches@sourceware.org>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] gdb, testsuite: Adapt gdb.base/callfuncs.exp for
> new clang warnings.
> 
> "Willgerodt, Felix via Gdb-patches" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
> >> Sent: Freitag, 15. Juli 2022 20:40
> >> To: Felix Willgerodt via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
> >> Cc: Willgerodt, Felix <felix.willgerodt@intel.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] gdb, testsuite: Adapt gdb.base/callfuncs.exp for
> >> new clang warnings.
> >>
> >> >>>>> "Felix" == Felix Willgerodt via Gdb-patches <gdb-
> >> patches@sourceware.org> writes:
> >>
> >> Felix> This patch disables those warnings with -Wno-deprecated-non-
> >> prototype.
> >>
> >> What happens when running the test against gcc?
> >>
> >
> > The test continues to pass.
> > I ran it with gcc 9.4, 10.3.1 and 11.3.1 on somewhat latest Ubuntu/Fedora.
> > There is also this comment in gdb.exp already:
> >
> >     # Some C/C++ testcases unconditionally pass -Wno-foo as additional
> >     # options to disable some warning.  That is OK with GCC, because
> >     # by design, GCC accepts any -Wno-foo option, even if it doesn't
> >     # support -Wfoo.  Clang however warns about unknown -Wno-foo by
> >     # default, unless you pass -Wno-unknown-warning-option as well.
> >     # We do that here, so that individual testcases don't have to
> >     # worry about it.
> >
> > That said, I just tested it again with the latest Intel compilers. And GDB only
> > adds the "additional_flags=-Wno-unknown-warning-option" for clang, not
> > for icx/icc. I will write a new patch for that soon. But that is a separate
> > issue.
> 
> Doesn't that mean adding this patch will can cause a test to regress
> with the Intel compiler?  Shouldn't adding -Wno-unknown-warning-option
> for Intel be a prerequisite for this patch?

My thought process was that there are already other tests that added
a "Wno-foo" option and these (and the testsuite) have therefore already
regressed against icc/icx in that regard.
Of course this particular test would stop running on older icc/icx versions.
Yet it would start running again for newer clang and icx versions.

That said, I don't think we need to discuss this any further. I have already
written the patch and am just running some more extensive testing.
I will post it soon. I am fine to make it a prerequisite.

Regards,
Felix
Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de <http://www.intel.de>
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Sharon Heck, Tiffany Doon Silva  
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928