Hi Marek.
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 05:37:03PM +0200, Jose E. Marchesi via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2023, Jose E. Marchesi via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> >
>> >> +@opindex Wcompare-distinct-pointer-types
>> >> +@item -Wcompare-distinct-pointer-types
>> >
>> > This @item should say @r{(C and Objective-C only)}, since the option isn't
>> > implemented for C++. OK with that change.
>>
>> Pushed with that change.
>> Thanks for the prompt review!
>
> I see the following failures:
>
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-1.c -Os (test for warnings, line 28)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-1.c -Os (test for warnings, line 30)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-1.c -O2 -flto
> -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none (test for warnings, line
> 28)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-1.c -O2 -flto
> -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none (test for warnings, line
> 30)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-1.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin
> -fno-fat-lto-objects (test for warnings, line 28)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-1.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin
> -fno-fat-lto-objects (test for warnings, line 30)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c -O0 (test for warnings, line 26)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c -O0 (test for warnings, line 28)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c -O1 (test for warnings, line 26)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c -O1 (test for warnings, line 28)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c -O2 (test for warnings, line 26)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c -O2 (test for warnings, line 28)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c -O3 -g (test for warnings, line
> 26)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c -O3 -g (test for warnings, line
> 28)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c -Os (test for warnings, line 26)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c -Os (test for warnings, line 28)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c -O2 -flto
> -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none (test for warnings, line
> 26)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c -O2 -flto
> -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none (test for warnings, line
> 28)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin
> -fno-fat-lto-objects (test for warnings, line 26)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin
> -fno-fat-lto-objects (test for warnings, line 28)
>
> The problem is that for ==/!=, when one of the types is void*,
> build_binary_op goes to the branch attempting to warn about
> comparing void* with a function pointer, and never gets to the
> -Wcompare-distinct-pointer-types warning.
Oof I wonder what happened with my regtesting.
I just pushed the patch below as obvious, which adjusts the tests to
conform to GCC's behavior of not emitting that pedwarn for
equality/inequality of void pointers with non-function pointers.
Sorry about this. And thanks for reporting.
>From 721f7e2c4e5eed645593258624dd91e6c39f3bd2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Jose E. Marchesi" <jose.march...@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 17:10:52 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Fix tests for PR 106537.
This patch fixes the tests for PR 106537 (support for
-W[no]-compare-distinct-pointer-types) which were expecting the
warning when checking for equality/inequality of void pointers with
non-function pointers.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR c/106537
* gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-1.c: Comparing void pointers to
non-function pointers is legit.
* gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c: Likewise.
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-1.c | 6 ++++--
gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c | 6 ++++--
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-1.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-1.c
index 3f3b06577d5..b67b6090dc3 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-1.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-1.c
@@ -25,9 +25,11 @@ int xdp_context (struct xdp_md *xdp)
return 3;
if (metadata + 1 <= data) /* { dg-warning "comparison of distinct pointer
types" } */
return 4;
- if (metadata + 1 == data) /* { dg-warning "comparison of distinct pointer
types" } */
+ /* Note that it is ok to check for equality or inequality betewen void
+ pointers and any other non-function pointers. */
+ if ((int*) (metadata + 1) == (long*) data) /* { dg-warning "comparison of
distinct pointer types" } */
return 5;
- if (metadata + 1 != data) /* { dg-warning "comparison of distinct pointer
types" } */
+ if ((int*) metadata + 1 != (long*) data) /* { dg-warning "comparison of
distinct pointer types" } */
return 5;
return 1;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c
index 6876adf3aab..d4223c25c94 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr106537-2.c
@@ -23,9 +23,11 @@ int xdp_context (struct xdp_md *xdp)
return 3;
if (metadata + 1 <= data) /* { dg-warning "comparison of distinct pointer
types" } */
return 4;
- if (metadata + 1 == data) /* { dg-warning "comparison of distinct pointer
types" } */
+ /* Note that it is ok to check for equality or inequality betewen void
+ pointers and any other non-function pointers. */
+ if ((int*) (metadata + 1) == (long*) data) /* { dg-warning "comparison of
distinct pointer types" } */
return 5;
- if (metadata + 1 != data) /* { dg-warning "comparison of distinct pointer
types" } */
+ if ((int*) metadata + 1 != (long*) data) /* { dg-warning "comparison of
distinct pointer types" } */
return 5;
return 1;
--
2.30.2
