On Wed, Oct 8, 2025, 14:53 Harald Anlauf <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 08.10.25 um 10:43 schrieb NightStrike: > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2025, 16:25 Jerry D <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 10/7/25 1:13 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote: > >>> Dear All, > >>> > >>> the attached patch addresses a rather old (> 14 years) issue. > >>> We generated warnings for standard conforming code, where a symbol > >>> was given a bind(c) attribute and at the same time declared PRIVATE. > >>> > >>> I checked a bunch of compilers, and none gave warnings, except for > >>> NAG, which did warn, but only if the binding name were the same as > >>> the default name. > >>> > >>> I considered this to be a good solution, and decided to "hide" the > >>> warning behind -Wsurprising (contained in -Wall). > >>> > >>> What do others think? > >>> > >>> Attached has been regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Harald > >>> > >> > >> I think your approach is very reasonable. It gets rid of noise that > users > >> do not > >> need, very OK by me. > >> > >> Jerry > >> > > > > I don't think it gets rid of noise if it moves the warning to Wall. In > > fact, comment 3 in the bug report describes my exact use case, which > should > > never warn, and requiring zero warnings at Wall is a common and > encouraged > > project goal. > > Well, specifying -Wall -Wno-surprising will suppress the remaining warning. >
That's really not a good response here. You are requiring turning off an entire category of warnings because you want to put this invalid one in Wall. This is a bad change. Please revert it. > > This warning should either be smarter to disambiguate intended and good > > uses or moved to its own option that is not part of Wall or Wextra. > > Pushed as r16-4308-g50959e53e40ae0 . > What is the point of asking for feedback if you're going to ignore it without discussion?
