On Thu, 4 Nov 2021 18:25:14 -0600
Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/31/21 8:13 AM, Daniil Stas wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 23:10:20 +0000
> > Daniil Stas <daniil.s...@posteo.net> wrote:
> >
> >> This option is enabled by default when -Wformat option is enabled.
> >> A user can specify -Wno-format-int-precision to disable emitting
> >> warnings when passing an argument of an incompatible integer type
> >> to a 'd', 'i', 'o', 'u', 'x', or 'X' conversion specifier when it
> >> has the same precision as the expected type.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniil Stas <daniil.s...@posteo.net>
> >>
> >> gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
> >>
> >> * c-format.c (check_format_types): Don't emit warnings when
> >> passing an argument of an incompatible integer type to
> >> a 'd', 'i', 'o', 'u', 'x', or 'X' conversion specifier when
> >> it has the same precision as the expected type if
> >> -Wno-format-int-precision option is specified.
> >> * c.opt: Add -Wformat-int-precision option.
> >>
> >> gcc/ChangeLog:
> >>
> >> * doc/invoke.texi: Add -Wformat-int-precision option
> >> description.
> >>
> >> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >>
> >> * c-c++-common/Wformat-int-precision-1.c: New test.
> >> * c-c++-common/Wformat-int-precision-2.c: New test.
> >> ---
> >> This is an update of patch "c-format: Add -Wformat-same-precision
> >> option [PR80060]". The changes comparing to the first patch
> >> version:
> >>
> >> - changed the option name to -Wformat-int-precision
> >> - changed the option description as was suggested by Martin
> >> - changed Wformat-int-precision-2.c to used dg-bogus instead of
> >> previous invalid syntax
> >>
> >> I also tried to combine the tests into one file with #pragma GCC
> >> diagnostic, but looks like it's not possible. I want to test that
> >> when passing just -Wformat option everything works as before my
> >> patch by default. And then in another test case to check that
> >> passing -Wno-format-int-precision disables the warning. But looks
> >> like in GCC you can't toggle the warnings such as
> >> -Wno-format-int-precision individually but only can disable the
> >> general -Wformat option that will disable all the formatting
> >> warnings together, which is not the proper test.
> >
> > Hi,
> > Can anyone review this patch?
> > Thank you
>
> I can't approve the change but it looks pretty good to me.
>
> The documentation should wrap code symbols like int64_t, long,
> or printf in @code{} directives.
>
> I don't think the first test needs to be restricted to just
> lp64, although I'd expect it to already be covered by the test
> suite. The lp64 selector only tells us that int is 32 bits
> and long (and pointer) are 64, but nothing about long long so
> I suspect the test might fail on other targets. There's llp64
> that's true for 4 byte ints and longs (but few targets match),
> and long_neq_int that's true when long is not the same size as
> int. So I think the inverse of the latter might be best, with
> int and long as arguments. testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> defines these and others.
>
> It might also be a good idea to add another case to the second
> test to exercise arguments with different precision to make
> sure -Wformat still triggers for those even with
> -Wno-format-int-precision.
>
> The -Wformat warnings are Joseph's domain (CC'd) so either he
> or some other C or global reviewer needs to sign off on changes
> in this area. (Please ping the patch weekly until you get
> a response.)
>
> Thanks
> Martin
Hi, Martin
Thanks for your response. I've sent an updated patch.
Best regards,
Daniil
