"Kaveh R. GHAZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I read through your slides and I'm interested in contributing. I didn't > see the presentation itself so I don't know if this suggestion is > redundant. However I believe some work could be done (maybe even on > mainline) to activate -Wc++-compat during bootstrap as a warning only, > (not an error). E.g.: > > #pragma GCC diagnostic warning "-Wc++-compat" > > This would help clean up some of the easy stuff and make the branch diffs > much smaller. > > We could also extend -Wc++-compat to warn about more things, using C++ > reserved keywords like "class" in C comes to mind.
Yes, I agree that both steps would be quite useful. There is already some support in the gcc configure system and Makefile to do this; search for CXX_COMPAT_WARN in gcc/Makefile.in. Adding $(CXX_COMPAT_WARN) to $(GCC_WARN_CFLAGS) will make -Wc++-compat be used when the build compiler supports it. > Some stats, I ran a quick make including the above #pragma in system.h, I > get 1089 new warnings. Yes. I am testing a mainline patch to clean up the tree codes now (now that we've gone to 16 bits for tree codes, there is no need to force each frontend to use a separate set of codes). > These are mechanical and can be fixed with simple casts. Again, IMHO > these non-controversial patches should go straight into mainline. > Once done we can -Werror this warning and avoid regressions. Yes, I agree. Ian
