Re: [PATCH] Various pages: SYNOPSIS: Use VLA syntax in function parameters

Hi Alex, At 2022-11-10T01:06:31+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Now, I've released man-pages-6.01 very recently (just a few weeks > ago), and I don't plan to release again in a year or two, so there's > time to do the implementation in GCC. From my side, please consider > this an ACK or even som

Re: [PATCH] Various pages: SYNOPSIS: Use VLA syntax in function parameters

Hi Joseph and Martin! On 11/10/22 07:21, Martin Uecker wrote: Am Donnerstag, den 10.11.2022, 01:39 + schrieb Joseph Myers: On Thu, 10 Nov 2022, Joseph Myers wrote: On Thu, 10 Nov 2022, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote: I've shown the three kinds of prototypes that have been changed: -

Re: [PATCH] Various pages: SYNOPSIS: Use VLA syntax in function parameters

Hi Branden! On 11/10/22 10:40, G. Branden Robinson wrote: Hi Alex, At 2022-11-10T01:06:31+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: Now, I've released man-pages-6.01 very recently (just a few weeks ago), and I don't plan to release again in a year or two, so there's time to do the implementation in GCC.

Re: Announcement: Porting the Docs to Sphinx - 9. November 2022

On 11/9/22 18:14, Joseph Myers wrote: On Wed, 9 Nov 2022, Martin Liška wrote: 1) not synchronized content among lib*/Makefile.in and lib*/Makefile.am. Apparently, I modified the generated Makefile.in file with the rules like: doc/info/texinfo/libitm.info: $(SPHINX_FILES) + if [ x$(HAS_

Re: Announcement: Porting the Docs to Sphinx - 9. November 2022

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 2:05 PM Martin Liška wrote: > > On 11/9/22 18:14, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2022, Martin Liška wrote: > > > >> 1) not synchronized content among lib*/Makefile.in and lib*/Makefile.am. > >> Apparently, I modified the generated Makefile.in file with the rules like

Links to web pages are broken.

Hi, I just observed that links like https://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html ceased to work. Presumably this is to sphinx stuff, but it would be great if not hundreds of links across the web to GCC pages like the above would be 404. I know that the new link is https://gcc.gnu.org/install

Re: Links to web pages are broken.

On 11/10/22 15:45, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: Hi, I just observed that links like https://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html ceased to work.  Presumably this is to sphinx stuff, but it would be great if not hundreds of links across the web to GCC pages like the above would be 404. I know that th

Re: Links to web pages are broken.

Am 10.11.22 um 16:05 schrieb Martin Liška: On 11/10/22 15:45, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: Hi, I just observed that links like https://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html ceased to work.  Presumably this is to sphinx stuff, but it would be great if not hundreds of links across the web to GCC pag

Re: Links to web pages are broken.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 15:17, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > > > > Am 10.11.22 um 16:05 schrieb Martin Liška: > > On 11/10/22 15:45, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > >> Hi, I just observed that links like > >> > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html > >> > >> ceased to work. Presumably this is to sph

Re: Links to web pages are broken.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 15:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 15:17, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > > > > > > > > Am 10.11.22 um 16:05 schrieb Martin Liška: > > > On 11/10/22 15:45, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > > >> Hi, I just observed that links like > > >> > > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/i

Re: Links to web pages are broken.

Am 10.11.22 um 16:25 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 15:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 15:17, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: Am 10.11.22 um 16:05 schrieb Martin Liška: On 11/10/22 15:45, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: Hi, I just observed that links like https://

Re: Links to web pages are broken.

> Am 10.11.2022 um 17:45 schrieb Georg-Johann Lay : > >  > >> Am 10.11.22 um 16:25 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: >>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 15:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 15:17, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: Am 10.11.22 um 16:05 schrieb Martin Lišk

Re: Links to web pages are broken.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 16:58, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > Am 10.11.2022 um 17:45 schrieb Georg-Johann Lay : > > > >  > > > >> Am 10.11.22 um 16:25 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: > >>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 15:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 15:17, Georg-Johann Lay w

How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

I’m the closest thing Autoconf has to a lead maintainer at present. It’s come to my attention (via https://lwn.net/Articles/913505/ and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PortingToModernC) that GCC and Clang both plan to disable several “legacy” C language features by default in a near-future

Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

On 2022-11-10, Zack Weinberg wrote: > The biggest remaining (potential) problem, that I’m aware of, is that > AC_CHECK_FUNC unconditionally declares the function we’re probing for > as ‘char NAME (void)’, and asks the compiler to call it with no > arguments, regardless of what its prototype actual

Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 17:52, Nick Bowler wrote: > It saddens me to see so much breakage happening in "modern C", a > language that has (until now) a long history of new language features > being carefully introduced to avoid these sort of problems. The features were introduced in 1999. Compilers

Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:16:20PM -0500, Zack Weinberg wrote: > I’m the closest thing Autoconf has to a lead maintainer at present. > > It’s come to my attention (via https://lwn.net/Articles/913505/ and > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PortingToModernC) that GCC and > Clang both plan to

Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

* Zack Weinberg via Gcc: > I’m the closest thing Autoconf has to a lead maintainer at present. > > It’s come to my attention (via https://lwn.net/Articles/913505/ and > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PortingToModernC) that GCC and > Clang both plan to disable several “legacy” C language fe

Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 17:58, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 17:52, Nick Bowler wrote: > > It saddens me to see so much breakage happening in "modern C", a > > language that has (until now) a long history of new language features > > being carefully introduced to avoid these sort

Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:16 PM Zack Weinberg via cfe-commits wrote: > > I’m the closest thing Autoconf has to a lead maintainer at present. > > It’s come to my attention (via https://lwn.net/Articles/913505/ and > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PortingToModernC) that GCC and > Clang both

-Wint-conversion, -Wincompatible-pointer-types, -Wpointer-sign: Are they hiding constraint C violations?

GCC accepts various conversions between pointers and ints and different types of pointers by default, issuing a warning. I've been reading the (hopefully) relevant partso f the C99 standard, and it seems to me that C implementations are actually required to diagnose errors in these cases because t

Re: -Wint-conversion, -Wincompatible-pointer-types, -Wpointer-sign: Are they hiding constraint C violations?

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 07:25:21PM +0100, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote: > GCC accepts various conversions between pointers and ints and different > types of pointers by default, issuing a warning. > > I've been reading the (hopefully) relevant partso f the C99 standard, > and it seems to me that C

Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 1:12 PM Jonathan Wakely via cfe-commits wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 17:58, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 17:52, Nick Bowler wrote: > > > It saddens me to see so much breakage happening in "modern C", a > > > language that has (until now) a long

Re: -Wint-conversion, -Wincompatible-pointer-types, -Wpointer-sign: Are they hiding constraint C violations?

* Marek Polacek: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 07:25:21PM +0100, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote: >> GCC accepts various conversions between pointers and ints and different >> types of pointers by default, issuing a warning. >> >> I've been reading the (hopefully) relevant partso f the C99 standard, >>

Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

On 2022-11-10 09:16, Zack Weinberg wrote: Changes to handle C23 built-in ‘bool’ better are under development but the design has not yet been finalized. [I'm cc'ing this to bug-gnulib too.] To my mind this is the biggest outstanding issue in Autoconf as far as C23 goes, as the upgrade path for

Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

On 2022-11-10 10:19, Aaron Ballman wrote: In terms of the Clang side of things, I don't think we've formed any sort of official stance on how to handle that yet. It's UB (you can declare the C standard library interface without UB but calling any function with a mismatched signature is UB) The

Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

* Rich Felker: > I've been writing/complaining about autoconf doing this wrong for > decades, with the best writeup around 9 years ago at > https://ewontfix.com/13/. Part of the reason is that this has bitten > musl libc users over and over again due to configure finding symbols > that were intend

Re: [PATCH] Various pages: SYNOPSIS: Use VLA syntax in function parameters

Hi Alex, At 2022-11-10T11:59:02+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > You know what Moltke said about plans and contact with the enemy. > > For one thing, I think the Linux kernel will move too fast to permit > > such a leisurely cadence. > > Heh, at this point, I burnt my ships, by using enhanced V

gcc-10-20221110 is now available

Snapshot gcc-10-20221110 is now available on https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20221110/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 git branch with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch

Re: -Wint-conversion, -Wincompatible-pointer-types, -Wpointer-sign: Are they hiding constraint C violations?

On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 19:17, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote: > > * Marek Polacek: > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 07:25:21PM +0100, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote: > >> GCC accepts various conversions between pointers and ints and different > >> types of pointers by default, issuing a warning. > >> > >

Re: [PATCH] Various pages: SYNOPSIS: Use VLA syntax in function parameters

On Thu, 10 Nov 2022, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote: > One problem with WG14 papers is that people put in too much, > because the overhead is so high and the standard is not updated > very often. It would be better to build such feature more > incrementally, which could be done more easily with a co

Re: [PATCH] Various pages: SYNOPSIS: Use VLA syntax in function parameters

Hi Joseph, On 11/11/22 00:19, Joseph Myers wrote: On Thu, 10 Nov 2022, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote: One problem with WG14 papers is that people put in too much, because the overhead is so high and the standard is not updated very often. It would be better to build such feature more incrementa

Re: -Wint-conversion, -Wincompatible-pointer-types, -Wpointer-sign: Are they hiding constraint C violations?

On Thu, 10 Nov 2022, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote: > I assumed that there was a rule similar to the the rule for #error for > any kind of diagnostic, which would mean that GCC errors are diagnostic > messages in the sense of the standard, but GCC warnings are not. The rule (for C) is that any dia

Different outputs in Gimple pass dump generated by two different architectures

Hello GCC, While looking at the failure for gcc.dg/uninit-pred-9_b.c, I observed that x86-64 and risc-v has a different output for the gimple pass since r12-4790-g4b3a325f07acebf4 . What would be causing the difference? Is this inte

Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

> On 10 Nov 2022, at 21:10, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 12:16 -0500, Zack Weinberg wrote: >> >> Nobody has a whole lot of time to work on Autoconf at present, but I >> would like to ask, anyway, what Autoconf could potentially do to make >> this transition easier. > > Wh

Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022, at 10:08 PM, Sam James wrote: >> On 10 Nov 2022, at 21:10, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> While everyone else is discussing big ideas, it would be helpful for me >> personally if autoconf just made a release with the latest bugfixes. > > Before I dive into the rest of this thread