This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: GCC switch to C11 causes many testsuite compiler diagnostics
- From: Andreas Arnez <arnez at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
- Cc: sandra at codesourcery dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:23:44 +0100
- Subject: Re: GCC switch to C11 causes many testsuite compiler diagnostics
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <544BD7E6 dot 1050602 at codesourcery dot com> <201410251728 dot s9PHSg6v018247 at glazunov dot sibelius dot xs4all dot nl>
On Sat, Oct 25 2014, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:03:34 -0600
>> From: Sandra Loosemore <sandra@codesourcery.com>
>>
>> Comparing my latest nios2 test results (with Pedro's thread patch) with
>> those from a checkout a couple weeks old, I noticed I had some new
>> ERRORs due to apparent compilation failures. I tracked this down to the
>> recent change on GCC mainline (r216247) to make the default C dialect
>> GNU11, which enables -Wimplicit-int and -Wimplicit-function-declaration
>> by default. I started working on a patch to fix the offending
>> testcases, but realized that there are hundreds of them. :-(
>>
>> So, before I invest a lot more time on this, is updating the GDB
>> testsuite to use a more modern C dialect the Right Thing To Do? I'm
>> also wondering if it's really necessary to support compilers that can't
>> handle function prototypes in the testsuite (not defining PROTOTYPES
>> seems to be the default, in fact).
>
> We've quite deliberately kept around a variety of C dialects and
> coding styles to make sure GDB works with whatever style people use.
> Having the majority of the tests use K&R style function declarations
> is probably not so useful anymore. But there are some tests that
> deliberately use K&_R style code to test whether GDB handles them
> properly. So blind conversion is probably not a good idea.
Do you know off hand which tests deliberately use K&R style code? Maybe
you'd like to verify that none of them is deleted by this patch series:
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-10/msg00802.html
--
Andreas