From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21254 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 2014 16:23:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 21238 invoked by uid 89); 30 Oct 2014 16:23:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com Received: from e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com (HELO e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com) (195.75.94.108) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:23:57 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:23:54 -0000 Received: from d06dlp03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.20.15) by e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.142) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:23:52 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by d06dlp03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42D211B08067 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:23:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.216]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s9UGNpvY13697466 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:23:51 GMT Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s9UGNo3U022019 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 10:23:51 -0600 Received: from br87z6lw.de.ibm.com (dyn-9-152-212-196.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.212.196]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id s9UGNnJt021935; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 10:23:49 -0600 From: Andreas Arnez To: Mark Kettenis Cc: sandra@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GCC switch to C11 causes many testsuite compiler diagnostics References: <544BD7E6.1050602@codesourcery.com> <201410251728.s9PHSg6v018247@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:23:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201410251728.s9PHSg6v018247@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (Mark Kettenis's message of "Sat, 25 Oct 2014 19:28:42 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: <87zjcd8r1r.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 14103016-0009-0000-0000-000001C0CAA3 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00852.txt.bz2 On Sat, Oct 25 2014, Mark Kettenis wrote: >> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:03:34 -0600 >> From: Sandra Loosemore >> >> 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