On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 03:03:47PM -0400, NightStrike wrote: > 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?
The bug has been opened for 14 years. You commented on the bug in 12/14/2019. You had 5+ years to provide a patch. If Harald reverts his patch, the bug will likely remain open for another 14 years. -- Steve
