https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119576
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
Thinking about the ones wehre -fsanitizer= is involved, we do have
documentation which warns about the use of -fsanitizer= with some of warnings.
Maybe when emitting the warning and one of the sanitizers is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119576
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #6)
> > libstdc++-v3/include/bits/char_traits.h:#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored
> > "-Warray-bounds"
>
> Done by r12-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119576
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
There might be an argument that we should provide a way to disable all "late"
(during/after optimization) diagnostics. There are often instances of the same
-Wxyz that are emitted from both frontends and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119576
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> The Linux kernel is some what a special case and somewhat should be using
> `--param min-pagesize=0` to avoid the warnings about low fixed addresses.
That is f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119576
--- Comment #8 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
The Linux kernel disables -Warray-bounds in GCC 9 and later (and
-Wstringop-overflow unconditionally).
https://github.com/openSUSE/kernel/blame/5be5ecdaf1e7fb1a04e6122771b432851cd2393d/init/Kconfig#L905-L92
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119576
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #8)
> The Linux kernel disables -Warray-bounds in GCC 9 and later (and
> -Wstringop-overflow unconditionally).
> https://github.com/openSUSE/kernel/blame/
> 5be5ecdaf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119576
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #6)
> Will Wray points out that GCC's own codebase disables `-Warray-bounds` in
> several places, including at least these places in current master:
>
> gcc/cp/modul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119576
--- Comment #6 from Arthur O'Dwyer ---
Will Wray points out that GCC's own codebase disables `-Warray-bounds` in
several places, including at least these places in current master:
gcc/cp/module.cc:#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Warray-bounds"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119576
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119576
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
What about removing -Wuninitialized too since that has just as many false
positives and has been included in -Wall even longer, at least 25 years now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119576
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119576
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
-Warray-bounds has been included in -Wall since before GCC 4.8.0 which is 12
years ago
I think it might be too late to reconsider this. Plus -Warray-bounds false
positives are not as well spread as yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119576
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fr
13 matches
Mail list logo
