[Bug bootstrap/51388] Configure failure to detect unsupported warning options for non-bootstrap builds (including cross builds)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #13 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #11) > Does this work? > > diff --git a/config/warnings.m4 b/config/warnings.m4 > index 292e5a4..b64b594 100644 > --- a/config/warnings.m4 > +++ b/config/warnings.m4 > @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ for real_option in $1; do ># Do the check with the no- prefix removed since gcc silently ># accepts any -Wno-* option on purpose >case $real_option in > --Wno-*) option=-W`expr $real_option : '-Wno-\(.*\)'` ;; > +-Wno-*) option=-W`expr x$real_option : 'x-Wno-\(.*\)'` ;; > *) option=$real_option ;; >esac >AS_VAR_PUSHDEF([acx_Woption], [acx_cv_prog_cc_warning_$option]) (In reply to Andreas Tobler from comment #12) > Seems to work. At least in stage one, compiling gcc. > > Thank you! Upon checking current config/warnings.m4, it looks like this patch was applied, so I'm closing this bug as FIXED.
[Bug bootstrap/51388] Configure failure to detect unsupported warning options for non-bootstrap builds (including cross builds)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388 Andreas Tobler andreast at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andreast at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #10 from Andreas Tobler andreast at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20 14:42:03 UTC --- -Wno-*) option=-W`expr $real_option : '-Wno-\(.*\)'` ;; The expr on FreeBSD treats leading minus (-) in an expression as an option. Therefor this does not work there. I'm trying to find a solution. One would be to remove the leading minus.
[Bug bootstrap/51388] Configure failure to detect unsupported warning options for non-bootstrap builds (including cross builds)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388 --- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org 2011-12-20 15:48:28 UTC --- Does this work? diff --git a/config/warnings.m4 b/config/warnings.m4 index 292e5a4..b64b594 100644 --- a/config/warnings.m4 +++ b/config/warnings.m4 @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ for real_option in $1; do # Do the check with the no- prefix removed since gcc silently # accepts any -Wno-* option on purpose case $real_option in --Wno-*) option=-W`expr $real_option : '-Wno-\(.*\)'` ;; +-Wno-*) option=-W`expr x$real_option : 'x-Wno-\(.*\)'` ;; *) option=$real_option ;; esac AS_VAR_PUSHDEF([acx_Woption], [acx_cv_prog_cc_warning_$option])
[Bug bootstrap/51388] Configure failure to detect unsupported warning options for non-bootstrap builds (including cross builds)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388 --- Comment #12 from Andreas Tobler andreast at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-20 15:57:36 UTC --- Seems to work. At least in stage one, compiling gcc. Thank you!
[Bug bootstrap/51388] Configure failure to detect unsupported warning options for non-bootstrap builds (including cross builds)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388 --- Comment #9 from Andreas Schwab schwab at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-19 13:12:31 UTC --- Author: schwab Date: Mon Dec 19 13:12:26 2011 New Revision: 182478 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=182478 Log: Check for warning flags without no- prefix config/: PR bootstrap/51388 * warnings.m4 (ACX_PROG_CC_WARNING_OPTS) (ACX_PROG_CC_WARNING_ALMOST_PEDANTIC): Run the test without the no- prefix. fixincludes/: * configure: Regenerate. gcc/: * configure: Regenerate. libcpp/: * configure: Regenerate. libdecnumber/: * configure: Regenerate. libiberty/: * configure: Regenerate. lto-plugin/: * configure: Regenerate. Modified: trunk/config/ChangeLog trunk/config/warnings.m4 trunk/fixincludes/ChangeLog trunk/fixincludes/configure trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/configure trunk/libcpp/ChangeLog trunk/libcpp/configure trunk/libdecnumber/ChangeLog trunk/libdecnumber/configure trunk/libiberty/ChangeLog trunk/libiberty/configure trunk/lto-plugin/ChangeLog trunk/lto-plugin/configure
[Bug bootstrap/51388] Configure failure to detect unsupported warning options for non-bootstrap builds (including cross builds)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed||2011-12-02 CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org Ever Confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-02 14:51:14 UTC --- I think the issue is that we allow random -Wno- as argument, but not positive variants. Trunk: ./xgcc -B. -c t.c -Wno-foo ./xgcc -B. -c t.c -Wfoo xgcc: error: unrecognized command line option '-Wfoo' that's probably deliberate. So the bug is that we check for -Wno-narrowing instead of -Wnarrowing. Now, the question is why we don't consistently error in 4.3 ... I see gcc-4.3 -c -Wno-narrowing t.c -DHAVE_ARG cc1: error: unrecognized command line option -Wno-narrowing with FSF GCC 4.3.6. So, are you sure this isn't behavior caused by vendor patches? (openSUSE GCC 4.3 also works) Still the behavior of warning for -Wno- changed appearantly. Joseph?
[Bug bootstrap/51388] Configure failure to detect unsupported warning options for non-bootstrap builds (including cross builds)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388 --- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-02 14:52:49 UTC --- Since 4.4.0 we no longer warn for unrecognized -Wno- forms, thus the configure check is broken as-is.
[Bug bootstrap/51388] Configure failure to detect unsupported warning options for non-bootstrap builds (including cross builds)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388 --- Comment #3 from stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com stevenb.gcc at gmail dot com 2011-12-02 14:59:37 UTC --- On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:51 PM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote: I see gcc-4.3 -c -Wno-narrowing t.c -DHAVE_ARG cc1: error: unrecognized command line option -Wno-narrowing with FSF GCC 4.3.6. So, are you sure this isn't behavior caused by vendor patches? (openSUSE GCC 4.3 also works) What do you see with gcc-4.3 -c -Wno-narrowing t.c? FWIW this is Debian GCC 4.3.2-1.1 on gcc17.
[Bug bootstrap/51388] Configure failure to detect unsupported warning options for non-bootstrap builds (including cross builds)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388 Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #4 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-02 15:01:15 UTC --- Confirmed per #2
[Bug bootstrap/51388] Configure failure to detect unsupported warning options for non-bootstrap builds (including cross builds)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388 --- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-12-02 16:09:57 UTC --- On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: Still the behavior of warning for -Wno- changed appearantly. Joseph? The idea was that if an unknown -Wno- option is passed, but there were no warnings, it doesn't matter that we don't know what warnings the -Wno- option might have been intended to disable because there were no warnings at all for it to disable - so diagnosis of unknown -Wno- options is deferred and they are only diagnosed if some other warning (that the unknown option might potentially have been intended to disable) is given.
[Bug bootstrap/51388] Configure failure to detect unsupported warning options for non-bootstrap builds (including cross builds)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388 --- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-02 16:20:56 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:51 PM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote: I see gcc-4.3 -c -Wno-narrowing t.c -DHAVE_ARG cc1: error: unrecognized command line option -Wno-narrowing with FSF GCC 4.3.6. So, are you sure this isn't behavior caused by vendor patches? (openSUSE GCC 4.3 also works) What do you see with gcc-4.3 -c -Wno-narrowing t.c? FWIW this is Debian GCC 4.3.2-1.1 on gcc17. /space/rguenther/install/gcc-4.3.2/bin/gcc -c -Wno-narrowing t.c cc1: error: unrecognized command line option -Wno-narrowing
[Bug bootstrap/51388] Configure failure to detect unsupported warning options for non-bootstrap builds (including cross builds)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388 --- Comment #7 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-02 16:48:45 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) Now, the question is why we don't consistently error in 4.3 ... I see gcc-4.3 -c -Wno-narrowing t.c -DHAVE_ARG cc1: error: unrecognized command line option -Wno-narrowing with FSF GCC 4.3.6. So, are you sure this isn't behavior caused by vendor patches? (openSUSE GCC 4.3 also works) I think this is due to the patch pr28322.dpatch in the Debian GCC 4.3.2-1.1 package. IIUC that patch is also in GCC 4.4. Is that something you can confirm?
[Bug bootstrap/51388] Configure failure to detect unsupported warning options for non-bootstrap builds (including cross builds)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51388 --- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-12-02 16:59:30 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: Still the behavior of warning for -Wno- changed appearantly. Joseph? The idea was that if an unknown -Wno- option is passed, but there were no warnings, it doesn't matter that we don't know what warnings the -Wno- option might have been intended to disable because there were no warnings at all for it to disable - so diagnosis of unknown -Wno- options is deferred and they are only diagnosed if some other warning (that the unknown option might potentially have been intended to disable) is given. That is right. This was requested precisely by Debian GCC maintainers. In fact, clang seems to follow gcc now, except that they only warn (instead of error) for unknown positive options: manuel@gcc12:~$ ~/bin/clang++ pr42356.cc -Wwhatever warning: unknown warning option '-Wwhatever' [-Wunknown-warning-option] In any case, how is it -Wno-long-long tested by configure? I guess configure could test whether -Wnarrowing -Wno-narrowing is accepted, or test with a testcase that triggers a default warning like 1/0.
