Re: C89isms in the test suite

* Sam James: > Would you be able to backport 6be2672e4ee41c566a9e072088a263bab5f7 > and 885b6660c17fb91980b5682514ef54668e544b02 to the active <13 > branches? Jakub, okay to backport these two (to 12, 11, 10 I presume)? commit 6be2672e4ee41c566a9e072088a263bab5f7 Author: Florian Weimer

Re: Revert Sphinx documentation [Was: Issues with Sphinx]

On 11/14/22 03:49, Martin Liška wrote: > I'm going to revert the patchset during today (Monday) and I'll send a patch > with a couple > of new changes that landed in the period of time we used Sphinx. The revert is done and I included ce51e8439a491910348a1c5aea43b55f000ba8ac commit that ports al

Re: Revert Sphinx documentation [Was: Issues with Sphinx]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 08:40, Martin Liška wrote: > > On 11/14/22 03:49, Martin Liška wrote: > > I'm going to revert the patchset during today (Monday) and I'll send a > > patch with a couple > > of new changes that landed in the period of time we used Sphinx. > > The revert is done and I included

Re: [BUG] -Wuninitialized: initialize variable with itself

On 13/11/2022 19:43, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: Hi Andrew! On 11/13/22 19:41, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 10:40 AM Andrew Pinski wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 10:36 AM Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: Hi, While discussing some idea for a new feature, I tested the

Re: [BUG] -Wuninitialized: initialize variable with itself

Hi David, On 11/14/22 10:41, David Brown wrote: On 13/11/2022 19:43, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: Hi Andrew! On 11/13/22 19:41, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 10:40 AM Andrew Pinski wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 10:36 AM Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: Hi, While dis

Re: [whish] -Wunterminated-string-initialization: new warning

Hi Andrew! On 11/13/22 23:12, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 1:57 PM Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: Hi! I'd like to get warnings if I write the following code: char foo[3] = "foo"; This should be easy to add as it is already part of the -Wc++-compat option as for C++ it is

Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 7:43 PM Paul Eggert wrote: > > On 2022-11-11 07:11, Aaron Ballman wrote: > > We believe the runtime behavior is sufficiently dangerous to > > warrant a conservative view that any call to a function will be a call > > that gets executed at runtime, hence a definitive signatu

Re: Revert Sphinx documentation [Was: Issues with Sphinx]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Martin Liška wrote: > The situation with the Sphinx migration went out of control. The TODO > list overwhelmed me and there are road-blocks that can't be easily fixed > with what Sphinx currently supports. This migration was/is a huge and complex undertaking, and you have be

Re: [whish] -Wunterminated-string-initialization: new warning

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 11:38, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: > > Hi Andrew! > > On 11/13/22 23:12, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 1:57 PM Alejandro Colomar via Gcc > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi! > >> > >> I'd like to get warnings if I write the following code: > >> > >> char foo[3]

GCC 13.0.0 Status Report (2022-11-14), Stage 3 in effect now

Status == The GCC development branch which will become GCC 13 is now in bugfixing mode (Stage 3) until the end of Jan 15th. As usual the first weeks of Stage 3 are used to feature patches posted late during Stage 1. At some point unreviewed features need to be postponed for the next Stage 1.

unterminated string literals (was: [whish] -Wunterminated-string-initialization: new warning)

Hi Jonathan, On 11/14/22 14:14, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 11:38, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: BTW, I had another idea to add a suffix to string literals to make them unterminated: char foo[3] = "foo"u; // OK char bar[4] = "bar"; // OK char baz[4] = "baz"u; // Warn

Re: [whish] -Wunterminated-string-initialization: new warning

Hi Jonathan, On 11/14/22 14:14, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 11:38, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: Hi Andrew! On 11/13/22 23:12, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 1:57 PM Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: Hi! I'd like to get warnings if I write the following

[BUG] README: Reference to non-existent path?

Hi, I'm trying to understand a few implementation details of gcc for implementing a new warning. For that, I first read the GCC manual [1]. [1]: However, that manual has nothing about internals, such as 'LangEnabledBy()'. Then I checked wha

Re: [BUG] -Wuninitialized: initialize variable with itself

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022, 04:42 David Brown via Gcc wrote: > On 13/11/2022 19:43, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: > > Hi Andrew! > > > > On 11/13/22 19:41, Andrew Pinski wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 10:40 AM Andrew Pinski > wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 10:36 AM Alejandro Coloma

Re: [BUG] README: Reference to non-existent path?

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 15:03, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm trying to understand a few implementation details of gcc for implementing > a > new warning. For that, I first read the GCC manual [1]. > > [1]: That's the user man

Re: [BUG] README: Reference to non-existent path?

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 15:03, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > BTW, it might be interesting to provide that manual > in a package, so that I could install it as something like: > > apt-get install gcc-doc-internal "info gccint" already works fine on my distro. If it's not packaged for yours, that's

Re: [BUG] -Wuninitialized: initialize variable with itself

On 14/11/2022 16:10, NightStrike wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2022, 04:42 David Brown via Gcc Warnings are not perfect - there is always the risk of false positives and false negatives.  And different people will have different ideas about what code is perfectly reasonable, and wha

Re: [BUG] README: Reference to non-existent path?

Hi Jonathan, On 11/14/22 16:36, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 15:03, Alejandro Colomar wrote: BTW, it might be interesting to provide that manual in a package, so that I could install it as something like: apt-get install gcc-doc-internal "info gccint" already works fin

Re: GCC 13.0.0 Status Report (2022-11-14), Stage 3 in effect now

Hi Martin, Is it allowed to merge libsanitizer from LLVM in stage 3? If not I'd like to cherry pick some commits from LLVM [to fix some stupid errors I've made in LoongArch libasan :(]. On Mon, 2022-11-14 at 13:21 +, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote: > Status > == > > The GCC develo

Re: [BUG] -Wuninitialized: initialize variable with itself

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022, 10:49 David Brown wrote: > > > On 14/11/2022 16:10, NightStrike wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022, 04:42 David Brown via Gcc > > > > Warnings are not perfect - there is always the risk of false > positives > > and false negatives. And different people will ha

Re: [PATCH] Various pages: SYNOPSIS: Use VLA syntax in function parameters

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: > Maybe allowing integral types and pointers would be enough. However, > foreseeing that the _Lengthof() proposal (BTW, which paper was it?) will > succeed, and combining it with this one, _Lengthof(pointer) would ideally give > the length of

Re: [PATCH] Various pages: SYNOPSIS: Use VLA syntax in function parameters

Hi Joseph! On 11/14/22 18:52, Joseph Myers wrote: On Sun, 13 Nov 2022, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: Maybe allowing integral types and pointers would be enough. However, foreseeing that the _Lengthof() proposal (BTW, which paper was it?) will succeed, and combining it with this one, _Lengt

Re: [PATCH] Various pages: SYNOPSIS: Use VLA syntax in function parameters

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: > SYNOPSIS: > > unary-operator: . identifier That's not what you mean. See the standard syntax. unary-expression: [other alternatives] unary-operator cast-expression unary-operator: one of & * + - ~ ! > - It is not an lvalue. > >

Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

On 2022-11-14 04:41, Aaron Ballman wrote: it's generally a problem when autoconf relies on invalid language constructs Autoconf *must* rely on invalid language constructs, if only to test whether the language constructs work. And Clang therefore must be careful about how it diagnoses invalid

Re: [BUG] README: Reference to non-existent path?

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: > Okay, let's see the online readable version of the manual: > > $ ls gcc/doc/gcc.info* > ls: cannot access 'gcc/doc/gcc.info*': No such file or directory That reference is for releases - those files are in release tarballs, but not

Re: [PATCH] Various pages: SYNOPSIS: Use VLA syntax in function parameters

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: > > To quote the convenor in WG14 reflector message 18575 (17 Nov > > 2020) when I asked about its status, "The author asked me not to put those > > on the agenda. He will supply updated versions later.". > > Since his email is not in the pap

Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

* Paul Eggert: > On 2022-11-14 04:41, Aaron Ballman wrote: >> it's generally a problem when autoconf relies on invalid >> language constructs > > Autoconf *must* rely on invalid language constructs, if only to test > whether the language constructs work. And Clang therefore must be > careful abou

Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 1:14 PM Paul Eggert wrote: > > On 2022-11-14 04:41, Aaron Ballman wrote: > > it's generally a problem when autoconf relies on invalid > > language constructs > > Autoconf *must* rely on invalid language constructs, if only to test > whether the language constructs work. And

Re: Revert Sphinx documentation [Was: Issues with Sphinx]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > I formatted my new region/endregion pragmas on one line because that > seemed to be how it should be done for rSt, e.g. we had: > > ``#pragma GCC push_options`` ``#pragma GCC pop_options`` > > But I think the attached patch is more correct for how we

Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

> On 13 Nov 2022, at 00:43, Paul Eggert wrote: > > On 2022-11-11 07:11, Aaron Ballman wrote: >> We believe the runtime behavior is sufficiently dangerous to >> warrant a conservative view that any call to a function will be a call >> that gets executed at runtime, hence a definitive signature m

Re: C89isms in the test suite

> On 14 Nov 2022, at 08:19, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Sam James: > >> Would you be able to backport 6be2672e4ee41c566a9e072088a263bab5f7 >> and 885b6660c17fb91980b5682514ef54668e544b02 to the active <13 >> branches? > > Jakub, okay to backport these two (to 12, 11, 10 I presume)? (Yes