Messages in this thread | | | From | Bernd Edlinger <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] Update -Wattribute-alias for gcc9 | Date | Mon, 28 Jan 2019 13:28:40 +0000 |
| |
On 1/25/19 1:24 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On 1/25/19 12:39 PM, Miguel Ojeda wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:58 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:43 AM Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Commit bee20031772a ("disable -Wattribute-alias warning for >>>> SYSCALL_DEFINEx()") disabled -Wattribute-alias with gcc8. >>>> gcc9 changed the format of -Wattribute-alias to take a parameter. >>>> This doesn't quite match with the existing disabling mechanism >>>> so update for gcc9 to match with the default (-Wattribute-alias=1). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com> >>>> --- >>>> This is RFC because it feels ugly. I went ahead and did the obvious fixup >>>> but it's worth discussing if we're going to end up with an explosion or >>>> if there's a better way to handle this in one macro. >>> >>> Bernd Edlinger has sent a patch to gcc for this: >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-01/msg01120.html >>> >>> and Miguel Ojeda said he wanted to send a patch for it to the >>> kernel as well, not sure if he wanted to take a different >>> approach there, so adding both to Cc here. >> >> Thanks Arnd (I was working with Martin on the expanded >> -Wmissing-attribute warnings, not on this, but thanks nevertheless :). >> >> Martin/Bernd: from the GCC mailing list I am not sure if we should >> expect the old behavior to be maintained or not. >> > > I believe it is not intentional to break the old syntax of the > pragma. There will be new -Wattribute-alias=1 and -Wattribute-alias=2 > and -Wattribute-alias is easy to retain as an alias for -Wattribute-alias=1. > That is what my patch will do. >
Okay, I committed the -Wattribute-alias patch to gcc trunk, now as https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=268336 . So there will be no need for a workaround on your side.
Also fixed a few false positive -Waddress-of-packed-member warnings with https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=268118 and https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=268337 .
However there remain a lot of warnings from -Waddress-of-packed-member, that look more or less valid, has anybody an idea how to handle these?
Bernd.
| |