From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Andy Moreton Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New warnings on emacs-26 branch with gcc 8.2.0 Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 16:06:25 +0100 Message-ID: <86zhxtq6xa.fsf@gmail.com> References: <86a7q0ai2z.fsf@gmail.com> <6d36dc4c-1e14-b6c8-e2f0-911d08f759e1@cs.ucla.edu> <8636vsxxjv.fsf@gmail.com> <880f6c74-daae-819d-c503-a52973b3f9d2@cs.ucla.edu> <861sbblwws.fsf@gmail.com> <1c65cdb5-f3a9-bfe1-c687-5cfce52c3945@cs.ucla.edu> <86pnyvjhxq.fsf@gmail.com> <7cfe570f-2c34-c55e-05b0-34ffdc6e4ee0@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1533999927 10864 195.159.176.226 (11 Aug 2018 15:05:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 15:05:27 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (windows-nt) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 11 17:05:23 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1foVSF-0002l4-CH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 17:05:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60466 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1foVUL-0004ZU-Sl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 11:07:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52754) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1foVUB-0004ZD-33 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 11:07:23 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1foVU6-00064c-3f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 11:07:23 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=46243 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1foVU5-00063y-Rs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 11:07:18 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1foVRx-0002T6-DS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Aug 2018 17:05:05 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 35 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:TyUq9aKVbneUkntekneiAEkfs38= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:228409 Archived-At: On Mon 06 Aug 2018, Paul Eggert wrote: > Andy Moreton wrote: >> I was hoping you could provide more background, as you are are shown as >> the most recent committer of almost every line of configure.ac related >> to warnings. > > Yes, I adapt this stuff for Emacs. However, it sounds like the part you want > changed comes from a part of Gnulib that I do not know as well. > >> Is this problem arising from use of the gnulib manywarnings module ? If >> so, why do we use it and not the simpler gnuslib warnings module ? > > The warnings module would require the hand-maintained Emacs source code to > list the exact set of warnings that it wants, which would be a pain to > maintain as the set commonly changes after each GCC release. The manywarnings > module maintains such a list for us, which is simpler for Emacs proper (and > allows us to share this mutating list among several GNU projects). The Emacs > configure.ac tailors the Gnulib list a bit, but mostly leaves it alone; this > is simpler for Emacs than maintaining its own sort-of-copy of the list by > hand. Using the manywarnings module still requires emacs to add new warnings to the nw list every time gcc is upgraded, so I don't think that is less work. The manywarnings list also lists every conceivable warning, including -Wall and -Wextra (why specify so many explicitly then?) and some that are specific to C++ (why list them at all?). It woudl surely be simpler to use _Wall -Wextra and a limited number of additional warnings that know to be useful, rather than checking if every warning is supported, even if they are unused and pointless. AndyM