From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-x52d.google.com (mail-ed1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52d]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5CCA3857C58 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 23:19:54 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org C5CCA3857C58 Received: by mail-ed1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id y12so17738177eda.4 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 16:19:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1RGXAQUFBlmRKo20bQWof7fU0fZEbPS+DBVXA1z2x98=; b=pjSfqkQqt7lmTuyMJ2o/XY5I2jvZLlUc3vI1nDAUtlun8KSNz5zlcNcK2qGLneO7Hx C4g1M/s086qZ8lzlrJse/QRSUErGgROMcAZv2zajK73yos/T8O6a2mmx3Fxjko7NFBPu /m+l6QoW3FUQthlNh3Po41+Fg/zDC4rRK3AcEGaW+1Qg9y7HcIZJJUS/naFVnKv5YmlJ m8fELOaEM+yQ+uNup0ZatPtegLa48SFBsbeHFP9aAUDyq2JiDrwP/s4hF7UbUbGdXQGQ Jxf88TuRmU/51AcqOPuvSVI/7QjktqX0Xxs1n8C0PddwUMMyodmmhU3L9MRohHq3/I+Y z9SQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530fz4KIEilRqQfwTrlZdaFlwzUJ1FC0/r9/3Cg9CfLCsknhrw9W FJ+h/q6Ay9JuKSK+1xqxoJu5X/7SwXQtu4oNaONlPai/ X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxEKRCJa2nDb+oDiMT3aMtR01ymdRXNGfG20ZOyTksDNpT+XRfsuNfCjnrzcrSOvN9Sm3tO9TF+ahMIZr+Prkc= X-Received: by 2002:a50:ff07:: with SMTP id a7mr1180942edu.338.1635376793901; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 16:19:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Stafford Horne Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 08:19:44 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Upstreaming OpenRISC with GCC mainline To: Joseph Myers Cc: GLIBC patches X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 23:19:57 -0000 On Thu, Oct 28, 2021, 7:13 AM Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 28 Oct 2021, Stafford Horne via Libc-alpha wrote: > > > The question now being, how should I go about upstreaming? Should I > > just backport my gcc patches to gcc-11 and move forward? Or should I > > work to fixup all of the GCC mainline issues the correct way? I think > > the second option may take quite some time though. > > What are you doing differently in your GCC or glibc ports that results in > getting these warnings for OpenRISC but not for other architectures? > That's a key thing to understand, separately for each issue (for example, > S/390 sometimes has problems with warnings not seen on other architectures > because it sets various tuning parameters differently). In some cases, it > might be that GCC *should* warn for other architectures, in which case an > upstream GCC bug needs reporting about the missing warning. For example, > I can see no good reason for the "'strcmp' argument 2 declared attribute > 'nonstring'" warnings you quote to depend on the architecture; they should > appear on all architectures or none. > > Then, if a warning is a false positive (and really is still present with > current GCC mainline), adding an initialization is not normally the > appropriate fix; rather, for uninitialized warnings we use DIAG_* to > suppress them, with a comment explaining the analysis of *why* the warning > is a false positive. For example, in sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32/s_log1pf.c we > already have a use of those macros for what looks like the specific > warning case you quote; if, despite that, you see the warning for a > different place in the same file for the same variable, it might be > reasonable to repeat the same macro calls and comment there, if the same > analysis applies. Hi Joseph, Thanks for the comments. I have been watching the testsresults mails: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-testresults/2021q4/008772.html https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-testresults/2021q4/008773.html I was seeing failures there and thought the warnings I was seeing were affecting all architectures. But now I see the builds are mostly clean. So it's something I'll have to track down. Now with your input I have some ideas. If I do need patches I'll use the proper DIAG_* macros as you mentioned. I am familiar with those. -Stafford