Re: i370 port

I have made this change: C:\devel\gcc\gcc\config\i370>cvs diff -c -r 1.23 i370.md Index: i370.md === RCS file: c:\cvsroot/gcc/gcc/config/i370/i370.md,v retrieving revision 1.23 retrieving revision 1.24 diff -c -r1.23 -r1.24 *** i370.

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 04/05/2012 11:29 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: this is drifting, but since we talking about teaching (which is part of my daytime job) On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Robert Dewar wrote: Wouldn't it be better in a "moderately basic programming course" to provide standard canned scripts that

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> xlc -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti conftest.c >> >> fails.  I don't think -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions does what GCC expects. > > Thanks for these data.  I think -fno-rtti and -fno-exceptions don't make > much sense at the linker level so we shou

gcc-4.5-20120405 is now available

Snapshot gcc-4.5-20120405 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20120405/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 4/5/2012 4:24 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: Gabriel Dos Reis writes: If it is the non-expert that would be caught in code so non-obvious that -Wuninitialized would trip into false positives, then it is highly likely that the code might in fact contain an error. I wish this were the case, but al

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:24, Richard Guenther >> wrote: >> >>> Which means never, because I think it's a prerequesite for switching? >> >> No.  I was not clear.  By "done", I meant t

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: > Gabriel Dos Reis writes: > >> If it is the non-expert that would be caught in code so non-obvious that >> -Wuninitialized would trip into false positives, then it is highly >> likely that the code might in fact contain an error. > > I wish thi

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

Gabriel Dos Reis writes: > If it is the non-expert that would be caught in code so non-obvious that > -Wuninitialized would trip into false positives, then it is highly > likely that the code might in fact contain an error. I wish this were the case, but alas I continue to see fairly trivial fal

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:24, Richard Guenther > wrote: > >> Which means never, because I think it's a prerequesite for switching? > > No.  I was not clear.  By "done", I meant that GCC builds with C++ in > all the platforms we can test. > >

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On 4/5/12, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Apr 4, 2012 Lawrence Crowl wrote: > > On 4/4/12, Richard Guenther wrote: > > > Making tree or gimple a C++ class with inheritance and > > > whatever is indeed a huge waste of time and existing developer > > > ressources (that, if only because they have to

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:24, Richard Guenther wrote: > Which means never, because I think it's a prerequesite for switching? No. I was not clear. By "done", I meant that GCC builds with C++ in all the platforms we can test. I'm sending a testing plan later today with the list of targets I th

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

this is drifting, but since we talking about teaching (which is part of my daytime job) On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Robert Dewar wrote: > Wouldn't it be better in a "moderately basic programming course" to > provide standard canned scripts that set things up nicely for students > including t

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> From developer perspective, we think that -Wall is so simple to >> remember, because >> in fact, we are used to handle so many complex things that this one five >> letter is nothing.  However, users aren't as sophisticated as we would like >>

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 09:04, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Pedro Lamarão >> wrote: >>> >>> Is anyone currently working or this? >>> >>> I'm not experienced in the code base, but this project seems fascinating

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 04/04/2012 07:02 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >>> Oh, wow.  Really?  That's a big change.  Time to be brave, I guess, >>> > but I very much like the idea of a gcc that does just what it's told; >>> > making -Wall the default is a big break wi

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 09:04, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Pedro Lamarão wrote: >> >> Is anyone currently working or this? >> >> I'm not experienced in the code base, but this project seems fascinating. > > I'm not aware of anyone - so go ahead (if you happen to have

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote: >> Well, if you write code so obvious that -Wuninitialized is annoying then: > > No, the code is certainly not obvious, and improving -Wuninitialized although > a nice goal is likely to require lots of effort, likely at the expense of > removin

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 2012-04-05 15:09:32 +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote: > Better would be to improve the output from -O1 so it is usable by a > debugger, even if this might require generating slightly less optimized > code at -O1 than is done now. This contradicts what you say below. > > > What is missing to me is a

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 5 April 2012 11:16, Arnaud Charlet wrote: > > OK, the above list looks reasonable to me at least as a starting point > that could be a bit refined (not sure -Wstrict-aliasing is so useful by > default for instance for legacy code), -Wstrict-aliasing is only active when -fstrict-aliasing is on,

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 5 April 2012 11:03, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >>> >>> Note that some of the above depend on optimization flag settings >>> (and optimization happening).  Those are not good candidates - I think >>> good candidates are those that would still

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 5 April 2012 11:03, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> >> Note that some of the above depend on optimization flag settings >> (and optimization happening).  Those are not good candidates - I think >> good candidates are those that would still be fully operational with >> -fsyntax-only. > > I am not sure

Re: i370 port

Hi Ulrich. I'm getting back to this after a long hiatus. I have reviewed the 'W' code in PRINT_OPERAND: else if (CODE == 'W') { /* hand-built sign-extension of signed 32-bit to 64-bit */ mvs_page_lit += 8; if (0 <= INTVAL (XV)) { fprintf (FILE, "=XL8'"); } else {

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 4/5/2012 8:59 AM, Michael Veksler wrote: They use an IDE, which is either Code-Blocks or Dev-C++, which run on Windows, but these IDEs don't turn -Wall on by default. As for the advice to use -Wall, there is so much to advise and so little time, and the sheer mass of information confuses

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 04/05/2012 03:43 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote: FWIW, in our "basic programming" course students have to hand their homework to an automated testing system which forces the compiler options we think useful, including all the relevant warning switches and -Werror. Of course, there is a web pag

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Robert Dewar wrote: > >> It's on my large TODO list, somewhere at the bottom, to propose >> to make -O1 stop after early optimizations and drop right to >> expansion from there.  That would turn optimization expectations >> upside-down of course, but early optimizat

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 02:30:10PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2012-04-05 08:17:57 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > > On 4/5/2012 8:06 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > >But no-optimizations (-O0) should not necessarily be the default > > >for these reasons. > > > > I think it is a problem that ev

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 03:28:54PM +0300, Michael Veksler wrote: > On 04/05/2012 02:45 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: > >I personally don't buy the "can't remember" argument. When you use > >GCC, you just have to remember -g, -O, -W and that's pretty much > >it. > Many of the students don't know of -Wal

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Pedro Lamarão wrote: > On 04/04/2012 08:20 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: >> >> On 4/4/12 5:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >>> Btw, I think we should only start forcing C++ when 1) there is a >>> branch/patch out >>> that shows benefit from using C++. I previously ment

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 04/05/2012 03:33 PM, Robert Dewar wrote: Wouldn't it be better in a "moderately basic programming course" to provide standard canned scripts that set things up nicely for students including the switches they need? Indeed for such a course wouldn't it be better to use an appropriate IDE, so th

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

It's on my large TODO list, somewhere at the bottom, to propose to make -O1 stop after early optimizations and drop right to expansion from there. That would turn optimization expectations upside-down of course, but early optimizations should be mostly reducing code size (and thus increase comp

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Robert Dewar wrote: > On 4/5/2012 8:06 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >> >> On 2012-04-05 06:26:43 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: >>> >>> Well a lot of users have been burned by using optimization >>> options, either becausae of compiler bugs, or because of bugs >>> in thei

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 05.04.2012 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote: On 4/5/2012 8:28 AM, Michael Veksler wrote: It is not that they can't remember. I am a TA at a moderately basic programming course, and student submit home assignments with horrible errors. These errors, such as free(*str) or *str=malloc(n) are easily be

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On 04/04/2012 08:20 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: On 4/4/12 5:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: Btw, I think we should only start forcing C++ when 1) there is a branch/patch out that shows benefit from using C++. I previously mentioned that I'd like to see 2) a patch that _properly_ wraps a C++ class f

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 4/5/2012 8:28 AM, Michael Veksler wrote: It is not that they can't remember. I am a TA at a moderately basic programming course, and student submit home assignments with horrible errors. These errors, such as free(*str) or *str=malloc(n) are easily be caught by -Wall. I have to remember to a

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 2012-04-05 08:17:57 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > On 4/5/2012 8:06 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > >But no-optimizations (-O0) should not necessarily be the default > >for these reasons. > > I think it is a problem that even at -O1 the debugger is > seriously limited, especially for an inexperience

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 04/05/2012 02:45 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: I personally don't buy the "can't remember" argument. When you use GCC, you just have to remember -g, -O, -W and that's pretty much it. It is not that they can't remember. I am a TA at a moderately basic programming course, and student submit home

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 4/5/2012 8:06 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2012-04-05 06:26:43 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: Well a lot of users have been burned by using optimization options, either becausae of compiler bugs, or because of bugs in their own code triggered by optimization. So the requirement of not using any

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 2012-04-05 06:42:02 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > c) warnings about things that are not errors but seem like > sloppy or unnecessary code (e.g. unused variables). This is sometimes an error, e.g. a variable name is used in the code instead another one (but of course, such warnings won't be able

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 2012-04-05 06:26:43 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > Well a lot of users have been burned by using optimization > options, either becausae of compiler bugs, or because of bugs > in their own code triggered by optimization. So the requirement > of not using any optimization options is not that uncomm

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On 04/04/2012 03:17 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> Note there's nothing I'm planning to do, nor I should do, in this regard: >> the two setups described above are both already supported by the current >> automake implementation (but the last one is

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

> From developer perspective, we think that -Wall is so simple to > remember, because > in fact, we are used to handle so many complex things that this one five > letter is nothing. However, users aren't as sophisticated as we would like > them to (I am not being condescending.) The way we have t

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 2012-04-05 11:55:45 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 04/05/2012 11:50 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2012-04-04 20:01:27 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> On 04/04/2012 07:11 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > >>> Really? Such as what? > >> > >> Such as "I wrote a perfectly legal C program, and gcc

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 2012-04-05 10:48:29 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 04/05/2012 10:39 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > > ... [-Wall + -Werror] ... > > > Btw, it would be more reasonable to enable a subset of warnings that > > we enable at -Wall by default. Notably those that if they were not > > false positives,

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 04/05/2012 11:50 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2012-04-04 20:01:27 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 04/04/2012 07:11 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >>> Really? Such as what? >> >> Such as "I wrote a perfectly legal C program, and gcc spewed out >> a ton of messages." > > What's a "legal C progr

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 2012-04-04 20:01:27 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 04/04/2012 07:11 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > > Really? Such as what? > > Such as "I wrote a perfectly legal C program, and gcc spewed out > a ton of messages." What's a "legal C program"? -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web:

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 04/04/2012 07:02 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> Oh, wow. Really? That's a big change. Time to be brave, I guess, >> > but I very much like the idea of a gcc that does just what it's told; >> > making -Wall the default is a big break with tradition. > Sometimes, we have to be brave to challeng

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 4/5/2012 2:39 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote: Can someone summarize what the most useful warnings people are expecting that -Wall would bring? I suspect not all of -Wall would actually be welcome/a good idea by default, and we might be looking for a better compromise where most warnings are enabled

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 4/5/2012 12:23 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: -Wall is roughtly equivalent to -gnatwa in the GNAT front end, and this is definitely NOT on by default. If you run GNAT in default mode, there are virtually no false positives, since the only warnings on by default are the kind of warnings that say

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

> Well, if you write code so obvious that -Wuninitialized is annoying then: No, the code is certainly not obvious, and improving -Wuninitialized although a nice goal is likely to require lots of effort, likely at the expense of removing some useful warnings. > either the implementation of -Wunini

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 4/5/2012 12:17 AM, Miles Bader wrote: Robert Dewar writes: We have run into people running benchmarks where they were specifically prohibited from using other than the default options, and gcc fared badly in such comparisons. Yeah, there was the silly "benchmark" at phoronix where they cam

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote: >> From the list I gave earlier: >> >>   -Wformat >>   -Wimplicit >>   -Wreturn-type >>   -Wsequence-point >>   -Wswitch >>   -Waddress >>   -Wstrict-aliasing >>   -Wenum-compare >>   -Wreorder >>   -Wpointer-sign > > OK, the above list looks r

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote: >> From the list I gave earlier: >> >>   -Wformat >>   -Wimplicit >>   -Wreturn-type >>   -Wsequence-point >>   -Wswitch >>   -Waddress >>   -Wstrict-aliasing >>   -Wenum-compare >>   -Wreorder >>   -Wpointer-sign > > OK, the above list looks r

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

> From the list I gave earlier: > > -Wformat > -Wimplicit > -Wreturn-type > -Wsequence-point > -Wswitch > -Waddress > -Wstrict-aliasing > -Wenum-compare > -Wreorder > -Wpointer-sign OK, the above list looks reasonable to me at least as a starting point that could be a bit refi

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote: >> The simpler requests are -Wall by default.  (there are some occasional >> -pedantic). >> >> The ones I've heard in person -- with the requesters quite competent and >> respectable programmers -- are in less polite words what I can possibly >

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

> The simpler requests are -Wall by default. (there are some occasional > -pedantic). > > The ones I've heard in person -- with the requesters quite competent and > respectable programmers -- are in less polite words what I can possibly > convey in this discussion. Adding more options isn't on t

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: >> Here is a (partial) list: >>  -Wformat >>  -Wchar-subscripts >>  -Wmissing-braces >>  -Wparentheses >>  -Wreturn-type >>  -Wsequence-point >>  -Wstrict-aliasing >>  -Wswitch >>  -Waddress >>  -Wstrict-overflow >>  -Warray-bounds >>  -Wvol

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis > wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Richard Guenther >> wrote: >> >>> Btw, it would be more reasonable to enable a subset of warnings that >>> we enable at -Wall by default. >> >>

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Richard Guenther > wrote: > >> Btw, it would be more reasonable to enable a subset of warnings that >> we enable at -Wall by default. > > Which ones for example? > > Here is a (partial) list: >  -Wformat >

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 04/05/2012 10:39 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: ... [-Wall + -Werror] ... > Btw, it would be more reasonable to enable a subset of warnings that > we enable at -Wall by default. Notably those that if they were not > false positives, would lead to undefined behavior at runtime. Specifically > I

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > Btw, it would be more reasonable to enable a subset of warnings that > we enable at -Wall by default. Which ones for example? Here is a (partial) list: -Wformat -Wchar-subscripts -Wmissing-braces -Wparentheses -Wreturn-type -

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:36 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis > wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Robert Dewar wrote: >>> On 4/4/2012 7:03 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >>> Again, this proposal does not come out of a whim. >>> >>> >>> But i

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default. >>> Comments? >> >> >> I'd just like to explicitly mention (th

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> Andrew Haley writes: >> >>> On 04/04/2012 03:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Andrew Haley writes: > On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> For GCC-4.

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Robert Dewar wrote: >> On 4/4/2012 7:03 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> >>> Again, this proposal does not come out of a whim. >> >> >> But it does seem to come out of a few anecdotal requests >> for a change,

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Andrew Haley writes: > >> On 04/04/2012 03:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> Andrew Haley writes: >>> On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default. > Comments?

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default. >> Comments? > > > I'd just like to explicitly mention (the obvious fact that) > that this has the effect of breaking builds of

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > On 4/4/12, Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Apr 4, 2012 Bernd Schmidt wrote: >> > On 04/04/2012 11:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: >> > > So - I'll veto the switch unless I see 1) and 2).  1) and 2) >> > > can be combined by transitioning vec.h

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Hi, > > For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default. > Comments? I'd just like to explicitly mention (the obvious fact that) that this has the effect of breaking builds of projects that carefully craft their warning set to be able to u