> On Aug 24, 2016, at 5:48 AM, Erik Joelsson <erik.joels...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > > On 2016-08-23 18:12, Phil Race wrote: >> On 08/23/2016 08:47 AM, Erik Joelsson wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I do agree that maintaining the list of disabled warnings will be >>> impossible unless we have a structured way of tracking for which >>> compiler versions we disable what. Ideally we should be able to easily >>> add conditions for when certain warnings should be disabled. We are >>> unfortunately lacking that today and at least I don't have the >>> bandwidth to fix that anytime soon. >>> >>> The official compilers are only really official for Oracle. The >>> OpenJDK can (and should) be buildable with a much wider range of >>> compiler versions. >> I agree there. This is fortunately not an "unbuildable" situation. >> The only other option I can think of which may or may not be palatable >> is to explicitly >> check the compiler version and add that disabled warning only for that >> exact compiler version. >> There'd still be some maintenance as that compiler version became either >> official .. or obsolete .. >> >> Is there precedent (or any kind of support) for that ? > What I had in mind was a structured way of adding conditionals for some kind > of ranges of compiler versions, or at least something like 6.*, or "greater > than 4.9.3". It's pretty simple today to check for exact compiler versions > but then we end up with a lot of changes when minor versions are bumped. I > don't think that would be worth it. > > In this particular case is shift-negative-value a new warning in GCC 6? If > that's the case it doesn't actually hurt adding it since GCC is nice enough > to not complain about unknown warning tags.
Not reviewing, but this caught my eye. The feature of not complaining about unknown -Wno-xxx warning options is only since gcc4.4. Some folks (like SAP) are still using versions that are older than that. > If we do, just make sure to specify in a comment that it's specific to GCC > version 6+.
