From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Samuel Bronson Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: gl_MANYWARN_ALL_GCC() leads to many spurious warnings Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 18:38:53 -0400 Message-ID: <707B3485-91B3-4420-888A-A02416D2D1C7@gmail.com> References: <4FF75B71.3040607@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1341614348 15149 80.91.229.3 (6 Jul 2012 22:39:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 22:39:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 07 00:39:08 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SnHB3-0001zx-Hg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 07 Jul 2012 00:39:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43450 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SnHB2-0005HM-Hs for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:39:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:50404) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SnHAy-00058B-D8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:39:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SnHAw-0002DJ-Hl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:38:59 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-qc0-f169.google.com ([209.85.216.169]:61025) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SnHAw-0002D5-Bu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:38:58 -0400 Original-Received: by qcsd16 with SMTP id d16so6375398qcs.0 for ; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:38:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=cc:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :x-mailer; bh=VjcKVzte2it32oicgLLjeji3gqjgpsHpTuY8dvs+oDE=; b=XOMIIsH2xZG65KzTHMBLXcE57iqchU0hOMBnLDQtzF82H189q5aMaygv+LKno8Nzgd 79pcnP57oyoSb7DGAt7hk/67umYTP6612x/H7AfXnr+3yVSXWEAanrhsa8ujGZmYvO0X irv1ddWxR2c/SBBYxR7ohhVAACTr3jaZzzkVRTaxNa1K/qHHM3P+CoXSXangpyXibdWU AbcwSbZbMaCPvithlZDS71pPRfIWN6jdELw1PGfcnkSq2CgM03VKJC6VE0/gxSJQ0MGJ QhHXmfcVQBrdgtQOXI5yRbpupLDmoiN9JBHJjp7k9OYEKDf1Z67HgxhHh3Qr3yijZwPP /wuQ== Original-Received: by 10.224.222.147 with SMTP id ig19mr47688159qab.32.1341614336634; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.0.18] (207-172-123-137.c3-0.upd-ubr1.trpr-upd.pa.cable.rcn.com. [207.172.123.137]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gy9sm52001389qab.22.2012.07.06.15.38.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:38:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FF75B71.3040607@cs.ucla.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 209.85.216.169 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:151477 Archived-At: On Jul 6, 2012, at 5:41 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 07/06/2012 02:17 PM, Samuel Bronson wrote: > >> Why not simply use "-W -Wall -Wextra" and perhaps a few others, plus >> a few overrides to turn off the warnings those enable that aren't >> useful with Emacs? That way, we'd only get warnings that had been >> reasonably well tested. > > Something like that might well be useful, but it's a different option > than what's intended here. --enable-gcc-warnings is intended for > developers, and it tries to take advantage of the latest and greatest > GCC features. If it enabled only flags that work well on all GCC > versions, the static checking would be of considerably lower quality. So, why does it use flags like -Wunreachable-code (which was so buggy that it eventually got yanked -- it's now silently ignored) and -Wsync- nand (which is totally irrelevant, and warns that this warning isn't allowed for Objective C code) and -Wunused-macros (which seems rather buggy in GCC 4.7.1 -- it doesn't seem to count appearing in an #ifdef as a use?). > It might be useful to have another configure-time option that would > enable just the warnings that work fairly well back to GCC version > something-or-another, if someone wanted to maintain that. It might be > a maintenance hassle, though, as there are lots of old and buggy GCCs > out there. Might make sense for this version, though: powerpc-apple-darwin9-gcc-4.2.1 (GCC) 4.2.1 (Apple Inc. build 5577) (That seems to be the last version Apple released for use on PowerPC Macs.) Old, yes. Buggy, yes. But it has its advantages...