On Sun, Dec 7, 2025 at 3:07 AM Nicholas Vinson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/6/25 18:38, Uri Lublin wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 6, 2025 at 10:54 AM Nicholas Vinson <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Disable the -Wmissing-braces warning as it suggests adding braces to > > designated initializes in a manner that violates C++20 rules. > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Vinson <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > --- > > m4/spice-compile-warnings.m4 | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/m4/spice-compile-warnings.m4 > b/m4/spice-compile-warnings.m4 > > index abe4a912..d2e1acc8 100644 > > --- a/m4/spice-compile-warnings.m4 > > +++ b/m4/spice-compile-warnings.m4 > > @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ AC_DEFUN([SPICE_COMPILE_WARNINGS],[ > > dontwarn="$dontwarn -Wstrict-prototypes" > > dontwarn="$dontwarn -Wsuggest-final-methods" > > dontwarn="$dontwarn -Wsuggest-final-types" > > + dontwarn="$dontwarn -Wmissing-braces" > > > > > > Probably better to (also?) remove "-Wmissing-braces" from the > > list iterated by gl_manywarn_item. > > Just before gl_manywarn_item there is a comment that says "List all gcc > warning categories". That comment is why I did not remove it from the > gl_manywarn_item list. > > It seemed more logically consistent to me to place it in the list and > then use the dontwarn feature to disable the flag. > > Hi Nicholas, I think you're right. The right way to do it is to add flags to "dontwarn". What about the patch order, does that make sense to you ? Thanks, Uri. > That said, I am amenable to either approach; I just would want to make > sure everyone is OK with the requested change. > > Thanks, > Nicholas Vinson > > > > > I suggest applying the m4 patch first (and g++ fix second) such > > that the build works after the first patch is applied. > > > > Thanks, > > Uri > > > > > > # Get all possible GCC warnings > > gl_MANYWARN_ALL_GCC([maybewarn]) > > -- > > 2.52.0 > > > >
