From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14714 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2014 19:29:05 -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 14704 invoked by uid 89); 31 Oct 2014 19:29:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-qc0-f180.google.com Received: from mail-qc0-f180.google.com (HELO mail-qc0-f180.google.com) (209.85.216.180) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 19:29:03 +0000 Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id o8so6365457qcw.39 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:29:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=yLlt0LzawBhdcSaxamOaxipnoJbajH3qMxCdaATsnlg=; b=LtIpJRF95Q6QKJf38ODWzabFzh40xm2ncEpjoOFIWGFuayCOZkMmaUy5e48GrsOpaz 3FGAp7VcTXtu0rrfrST1V7S5LclhB4/YGbfdX6uywTGFkgDX0i0zrWPfgX8J7S6RRNhs 8XVoNlJMrrWljv6ygl5xC5gUJ0anxl8YUj1KLMbkKnpRFAGXGJkPEcGeKlly2m3ZBg0P juqVB8pip2i/E3tU7yUTrvvsaY++A7Hpr1C/OFGYzwBaORPTwr0LptwY6KjH+azTlAMS fIXlWBjLu0Aj1yDABmRY0zkPP+7zHU5FDtSoyNGbY5yHDjLntQoNthunkj6m0P/m9iV2 tdzw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmfXBH4tynzWBTzWugo2zbEWEymZ4+duLBauubzlLzW9LsA8OxIES51zPyubJ5d2Apys5/N MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.80.165 with SMTP id c34mr38583310qgd.96.1414783741542; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.250.4 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:29:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201410311923.s9VJNYFW025974@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> References: <544BD7E6.1050602@codesourcery.com> <201410251728.s9PHSg6v018247@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <87zjcd8r1r.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <201410311923.s9VJNYFW025974@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 19:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: GCC switch to C11 causes many testsuite compiler diagnostics From: Doug Evans To: Mark Kettenis Cc: Andreas Arnez , Sandra Loosemore , gdb-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00862.txt.bz2 On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote: >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:02:11 -0700 >> From: Doug Evans >> >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Andreas Arnez wrote: >> > 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 >> >> fwiw, I think this is the way to proceed. >> >> Find/pick a few tests that are explicitly for K&R, mark them as such, >> and move on. >> Life's short and there are so many vastly more important things to do than >> worry about losing some K&R coverage. If an issue turns up, we'll have >> real data to support a real K&R test. > > FWIW, those that explicitly and unconditionally use "set prototypes 0" > are deliberately testing K&R stuff. And it would probably make sense > to run callfuncs.exp in both modes on all platforms. Ah, righto. Can we migrate all other tests?