On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 4:55 PM Richard Henderson < richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 8/9/19 3:31 AM, Aleksandar Markovic wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:43 PM Richard Henderson < > richard.hender...@linaro.org > > <mailto:richard.hender...@linaro.org>> wrote: > > > > On 8/8/19 4:41 AM, Aleksandar Markovic wrote: > > > +/* > > > + * Include the generated decoders. > > > + * Note that the T32 decoder reuses some of the trans_* > functions > > > + * initially declared by the A32 decoder, which results in > duplicate > > > + * declaration warnings. Suppress them. > > > + */ > > > + > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PRAGMA_DIAGNOSTIC_AVAILABLE > > > +# pragma GCC diagnostic push > > > +# pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wredundant-decls" > > > +# ifdef __clang__ > > > +# pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wtypedef-redefinition" > > > +# endif > > > +#endif > > > + > > > > > > > > > This looks more like a "band aid" solution rather than the right > one. > > > > What would the "right" solution be, would you say? > > > > > > The right (without quotation marks) solution is not to generate the code > that > > generates compiler complaints. > > That would be impossible with the information supplied. > That limitation is a fault of decodetree design, not an obstacle per se. > Emitting zero declarations will result in invalid C. We ensure that each > individual decodetree file does not emit duplicates. However, there is no > knowledge across separate decodetree files about which declarations are > duplicate. > > In this particular case, I do not even agree that the warnings themselves > are > useful. I suppose it's not impossible that they could diagnose some > weirdness > in a code base, where a function is declared in multiple headers or a patch > application has gone awry leaving multiple sequential declarations, but > honestly how often does that happen? > > I suppose with some work, we could not invoke decodetree multiple times, > but > give it all of the input files at once, producing a single output file. > > > > Obviously, in this case, decodetree-generated code shows that it is > > inferior to human-generated code. > > That is not obvious at all. Moreover, I disagree strongly. > > OK. I'm fine with your disagreeing. That why open source exists - to have opportunities to hear different views. Yours, Aleksandar > r~ >
