On 3/29/22 03:24, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
On 2022-01-15T17:00:11-0700, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
On 1/11/22 15:40, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 11/30/21 17:32, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
[default setting of the option]
Let's put =2 in -Wall for now.
I've adjusted [...] and pushed r12-6605 [...]
That's from commit 671a283636de75f7ed638ee6b01ed2d44361b8b6
"Add -Wuse-after-free [PR80532]":
| --- gcc/common.opt
| +++ gcc/common.opt
| [...]
| +Wuse-after-free
| +Common Var(warn_use_after_free) Warning
| +Warn for uses of pointers to deallocated strorage.
| +
| +Wuse-after-free=
| +Common Joined RejectNegative UInteger Var(warn_use_after_free) Warning
IntegerRange(0, 3)
| +Warn for uses of pointers to deallocated strorage.
| [...]
| --- gcc/c-family/c.opt
| +++ gcc/c-family/c.opt
| [...]
| +# Defining these options here in addition to common.opt is necessary
| +# in order for the default -Wall setting of -Wuse-after-free=2 to take
| +# effect.
| +
| +Wuse-after-free
| +LangEnabledBy(C ObjC C++ LTO ObjC++)
| +; in common.opt
| +
| +Wuse-after-free=
| +LangEnabledBy(C ObjC C++ LTO ObjC++, Wall,2,0)
| +; in common.opt
| [...]
OK to push the attached "options: Remove
'gcc/c-family/c.opt:Wuse-after-free' option definition record"?
It's fine with me if it passes tests. I remember noticing a subtle
distinction in how option aliases are sometimes treated in #pragma
GCC diagnostic but not the exact details. I added tests to make
sure it has the expected effect without the trailing =. See
the comment in c-c++-common/Wuse-after-free.c.
Thanks
Martin
Grüße
Thomas
-----------------
Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634
München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas
Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht
München, HRB 106955
