Hi, What next steps should I perform in order to get this changes merged to GCC?
Regards, Nikolai ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nikolai Merinov" To: "Martin Sebor" , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 3:21:15 PM Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add option to control warnings added through attribure "warning" Hi Martin, On 10/15/18 6:20 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 10/15/2018 01:55 AM, Nikolai Merinov wrote: >> Hi Martin, >> >> On 10/12/18 9:58 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> On 10/12/2018 04:14 AM, Nikolai Merinov wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> In https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg01795.html mail I >>>> suggested patch to have ability to control behavior of >>>> "__attribute__((warning))" in case when option "-Werror" enabled. Usage >>>> example: >>>> >>>>> #include >>>>> int a() __attribute__((warning("Warning: `a' was used"))); >>>>> int a() { return 1; } >>>>> int main () { return a(); } >>>> >>>>> $ gcc -Werror test.c >>>>> test.c: In function ‘main’: >>>>> test.c:4:22: error: call to ‘a’ declared with attribute warning: >>>>> Warning: `a' was used [-Werror] >>>>> int main () { return a(); } >>>>> ^ >>>>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors >>>>> $ gcc -Werror -Wno-error=warning-attribute test.c >>>>> test.c: In function ‘main’: >>>>> test.c:4:22: warning: call to ‘a’ declared with attribute warning: >>>>> Warning: `a' was used >>>>> int main () { return a(); } >>>>> ^ >>>> Can you provide any feedback on suggested changes? >>> >>> It seems like a useful feature and in line with the philosophy >>> that distinct warnings should be controlled by their own options. >>> >>> I would only suggest to consider changing the name to >>> -Wattribute-warning, because it applies specifically to that >>> attribute (as opposed to warnings about attributes in general). >>> >>> There are many attributes in GCC and diagnosing problems that >>> are unique to each, under the same -Wattributes option, is >>> becoming too coarse and overly limiting. To make it more >>> flexible, I expect new options will need to be introduced, >>> such as -Wattribute-alias (to control aspects of the alias >>> attribute and others related to it), or -Wattribute-const >>> (to control diagnostics about functions declared with >>> attribute const that violate the attribute's constraints). >>> >>> An alternative might be to introduce a single -Wattribute= >>> option where the gives >>> the names of all the distinct attributes whose unique >>> diagnostics one might need to control. >>> >>> Martin >> >> Currently there is several styles already in use: >> >> -Wattribute-alias where "attribute" word used as prefix for name of >> attribute, >> -Wsuggest-attribute=[pure|const|noreturn|format|malloc] where name of >> attribute passed as possible argument, >> -Wmissing-format-attribute where "attribute" word used as suffix, >> -Wdeprecated-declarations where "attribute" word not used at all even if >> this warning option was created especially for "deprecated" attribute. >> >> I changed name to "-Wattribute-warning" as you suggested, but unifying style >> for all attribute related warning looks like separate activity. Please check >> new patch in attachments. >> > > Thanks for survey! I agree that making the existing options > consistent (if that's what we want) should be done separately. > > Martin > > PS It doesn't look like your latest attachments made it to > the list. > Thank you for mentioning. There was my mistake. Now it's attached > >> Updated changelog: >> >> gcc/Changelog >> >> 2018-10-14 Nikolai Merinov >> >> * gcc/common.opt: Add -Wattribute-warning. >> * gcc/doc/invoke.texi: Add documentation for -Wno-attribute-warning. >> * gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Wno-attribute-warning.c: New test. >> * gcc/expr.c (expand_expr_real_1): Add new attribute to warning_at >> call to allow user configure behavior of "warning" attribute
