On 11/02/2018 04:52 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
I have reworked the patch to resolve any lingering concerns about
warnings in configure tests. The attached revision only warns
with -Wextra and only for incompatible declarations of built-ins
that take arguments. For void built-ins like abort() it only
warns with -Wpedantic (this required adjustments to several
tests that are being compiled with -pedantic-errors).
I don't think this use of -Wpedantic is appropriate. -Wpedantic is not a
catch-all for warnings we don't want to enable with some other option;
it's specifically for programs doing something that is disallowed by ISO C
(such warnings may or may not also be enabled by other relevant options).
Since this declaration is not disallowed by ISO C, -Wpedantic should not
result in a warning for it.
(I do consider declarations with () for built-in functions without
arguments to be more dubious than for user-defined functions without
arguments, simply because good practice would be to include the standard
header to get declarations of those functions, whereas for user-defined
functions the code might simply be using C++ style for declaring functions
without arguments.)
-Wpedantic alone doesn't cause a warning, only in conjunction
with -Wno-builtin-declaration-mismatch.
But I have no preference for what option to put it under, or
necessarily think that using -Wpedantic (or any other "group"
option) like this is a great idea (it doesn't work with #pragma
GCC diagnostic that way I think it should). In fact, with
the latest approach of diagnosing unsafe calls to these functions
regardless of the declaration form it doesn't seem that important
that declarations of built-ins with no arguments be diagnosed at
all. Either way, there aren't enough of them for it to matter
much. I think there's just one: abort. I'm fine with removing
this part of the patch.
Is there anything else?
Martin
