Hello,
On 17/06/2014 19:41, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>
>> OK. I will do that.
>> We should test the following:
>> * default => run just -Wreturn-type
>> * -Wreturn-type => Run both
>> * -Wreturn-type + -Wmissing-return => Run both
>> * -Wno-return-type
Joseph, ping :)
(I know you were in holidays)
S
On 07/07/2014 19:17, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 17/06/2014 19:41, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>>
>>> OK. I will do that.
>>> We should test the following:
>>> * default => run just -Wreturn-type
On Mon, 7 Jul 2014, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 17/06/2014 19:41, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> >
> >> OK. I will do that.
> >> We should test the following:
> >> * default => run just -Wreturn-type
> >> * -Wreturn-type => Run both
> >> * -Wr
On Jun 4, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Finally, I have been able to update all tests with -Wreturn-type enabled
> by default.
> Now, I would like to know if I can commit that into the repository. Who
> can review that?
I’d like a C style person to review gcc.dg/Wreturn-type2.c, ju
On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Finally, I have been able to update all tests with -Wreturn-type enabled
> by default. AFAIK, under GNU/Linux Debian Jessie 64 bits, there is no
> PASS->FAIL tests.
>
> Now, I would like to know if I can commit that into the repository. Who
On 05/06/2014 01:31, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2014, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Finally, I have been able to update all tests with -Wreturn-type enabled
>> by default. AFAIK, under GNU/Linux Debian Jessie 64 bits, there is no
>> PASS->FAIL tests.
>>
>> Now, I would like
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > Some of those patches appear to be addressing cases where control appears
> > to reach the end of a function returning non-void, as opposed to cases
> > where the return type defaults to int.
> Do you have an example of the patches you are talking
On 05/06/2014 20:01, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
>> Initially, I implemented -Wmissing-return to manage this case (
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00820.html ) but Jason
>> suggested to remove that:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg01033.html
>> (I don't have a strong
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> On 05/06/2014 20:01, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> >
> >> Initially, I implemented -Wmissing-return to manage this case (
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00820.html ) but Jason
> >> suggested to remove that:
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gc
On 17/06/2014 19:15, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>
>> On 05/06/2014 20:01, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Initially, I implemented -Wmissing-return to manage this case (
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-01/msg00820.html ) but Jason
suggested to
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> OK. I will do that.
> We should test the following:
> * default => run just -Wreturn-type
> * -Wreturn-type => Run both
> * -Wreturn-type + -Wmissing-return => Run both
> * -Wno-return-type + -Wmissing-return => Run just the second one
> * -Wno-return-
On 31/07/2014 00:08, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2014, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 17/06/2014 19:41, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>>>
OK. I will do that.
We should test the following:
* default => run just -Wreturn-
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > The test Wmissing-return2.c only has one of the two warnings. But as per
> > "-Wreturn-type => Run both", and for backwards compatibility with the
> > existing definition of -Wreturn-type, both warnings should appear for this
> > test.
> Make s
On 12/08/2014 19:48, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2014, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>
>>> The test Wmissing-return2.c only has one of the two warnings. But as per
>>> "-Wreturn-type => Run both", and for backwards compatibility with the
>>> existing definition of -Wreturn-type, both warnin
On 12/08/2014 19:48, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2014, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>
>>> The test Wmissing-return2.c only has one of the two warnings. But as per
>>> "-Wreturn-type => Run both", and for backwards compatibility with the
>>> existing definition of -Wreturn-type, both warnin
--- a/gcc/fortran/options.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/options.c
@@ -693,6 +693,10 @@ gfc_handle_option (size_t scode, const char *arg,
int value,
gfc_option.warn_line_truncation = value;
break;
+case OPT_Wmissing_return:
+ warn_missing_return = value;
+ break;
+
case OPT_W
On 14/08/2014 20:48, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> --- a/gcc/fortran/options.c
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/options.c
> @@ -693,6 +693,10 @@ gfc_handle_option (size_t scode, const char *arg,
> int value,
>gfc_option.warn_line_truncation = value;
>break;
>
> +case OPT_Wmissing_return:
> +
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> It is indeed useless. I removed it. Thanks
> http://sylvestre.ledru.info/0001-Enable-warning-Wreturn-type-by-default.patch
I don't think most of the testsuite changes in this patch should be
needed, and we should be conservative about changing existi
On 20/08/2014 00:02, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>
>> It is indeed useless. I removed it. Thanks
>> http://sylvestre.ledru.info/0001-Enable-warning-Wreturn-type-by-default.patch
> I don't think most of the testsuite changes in this patch should be
> needed,
On Wed, 20 Aug 2014, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> On 20/08/2014 00:02, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> >
> >> It is indeed useless. I removed it. Thanks
> >> http://sylvestre.ledru.info/0001-Enable-warning-Wreturn-type-by-default.patch
> > I don't think most of
2013/12/21 Sylvestre Ledru :
> Hello
>
> Following this thread http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-11/msg00260.html
> and this bug,
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55189
>
> I would like to propose the two following patches:
>
> I am activating -Wreturn-type by defaut and add the option -W
Chung-Wu wrote:
> But I notice your ChangeLog formatting is not correct.
>
> You can refer to other entries in ChangeLog to refine yours,
> and then resubmit the patch for review. :)
Or - use contrib/mklog to autogenerate template ChangeLog for you.
-Y
My preference would be to turn -Wreturn-type on by default, but not
create the separate -Wmissing-return flag. As I argued in 2002, there
should only be one flag.
To avoid spurious warnings on code with infinite loops we could add a
simple check for infinite loops and suppress the warning in
On 16/01/2014 11:44, Jason Merrill wrote:
> My preference would be to turn -Wreturn-type on by default, but not
> create the separate -Wmissing-return flag. As I argued in 2002, there
> should only be one flag.
I don't have any opinion on the subject. The separate option or not is
fine with me. I
On 01/16/2014 02:44 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
To avoid spurious warnings on code with infinite loops we could add a
simple check for infinite loops and suppress the warning in that case.
Basically, if we see a loop with an always-true condition and no breaks.
Like so:
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
On 23/01/2014 10:48, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 01/16/2014 02:44 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> To avoid spurious warnings on code with infinite loops we could add a
>> simple check for infinite loops and suppress the warning in that case.
>> Basically, if we see a loop with an always-true condition an
26 matches
Mail list logo