[Bug c/111654] Introduce clang's invalid-noreturn warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111654 --- Comment #7 from Julian Waters --- I recently stumbled upon -Wno-attributes, which can apparently take a parameter like -Wno-attributes=vendor:: and I think that's appropriate for this particular situation. How does -Wno-invalid-noreturn, -Wno-invalid-noreturn=explicit and -Wno-invalid-noreturn=implicit sound? But I have no idea how to implement this type of option within gcc, any advice?
[Bug c/111654] Introduce clang's invalid-noreturn warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111654 --- Comment #6 from Julian Waters --- Sorry for the late reply, I was busy with certain things Are we going with numeric invalid-noreturn or explicit-noreturn + implicit-noreturn? I'm not to sure how to implement the latter, if we're going with that
[Bug c/111654] Introduce clang's invalid-noreturn warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111654 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4) > Unfortunately, gcc does not have any patch tracking system I thought someone was getting a patchwork installation set up? ...ok yeah, here it is; it's being hosted on sourceware currently: https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/gcc/list/ (could be made a little more discoverable from gcc.gnu.org IMO)
[Bug c/111654] Introduce clang's invalid-noreturn warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111654 --- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Julian Waters from comment #2) > (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #1) > Yeah, I did try submitting it to gcc-patches, but it simply went ignored for > forever, so I decided to submit the patch through the bug system instead, > like others have done. I implemented it as numeric values to avoid inventing > new names for -Woption and because it was easier to implement for a gcc > beginner like myself, so worded warnings are likely to take me longer to > implement Apologies, I was not aware of that. I think it is a good idea to add the link to the mailing list here in bugzilla so it is not lost in the mailing list archive. Unfortunately, gcc does not have any patch tracking system so it is up to submitters to ping patches (the submitter is the one interested in seeing the patch committed). See for example: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/627958.html It may take 4 to 10 pings to get the patch reviewed. It helps sometimes to describe the area the patch touches in the subject. In your case, I would write "[C family]". It helps reviewers if you mention how the patch was tested and also if the patch is attached as plain-text (not as application/*): https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches See other suggestions on how to interact with the GCC community here: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Community
[Bug c/111654] Introduce clang's invalid-noreturn warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111654 --- Comment #3 from Sam James --- It would be worth mentioning that then. Anyway: * https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/cap2b4gmq7btqtequuuok7ojt8p3kdbdvpudrmo_nt95wumw...@mail.gmail.com/ * https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/cap2b4gmfj0gx_aahmu4xcnq2l6doohr8pftzpyq4mccdzh-...@mail.gmail.com/
[Bug c/111654] Introduce clang's invalid-noreturn warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111654 --- Comment #2 from Julian Waters --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #1) > (In reply to Julian Waters from comment #0) > > Created attachment 56022 [details] > > Patch to add invalid-noreturn to gcc > > Patches should be submitted to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org > > For more details, please read: > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GettingStarted#Basics: > _Contributing_to_GCC_in_10_easy_steps > > Except for clang compatibility, I believe the consensus is that numerical > levels are not user-friendly. I think it would be better to have: > > -Wnoreturn-implicit-return > -Wnoreturn-explicit-return > > -Winvalid-noreturn enables / disables both. Yeah, I did try submitting it to gcc-patches, but it simply went ignored for forever, so I decided to submit the patch through the bug system instead, like others have done. I implemented it as numeric values to avoid inventing new names for -Woption and because it was easier to implement for a gcc beginner like myself, so worded warnings are likely to take me longer to implement
[Bug c/111654] Introduce clang's invalid-noreturn warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111654 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Julian Waters from comment #0) > Created attachment 56022 [details] > Patch to add invalid-noreturn to gcc Patches should be submitted to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org For more details, please read: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GettingStarted#Basics:_Contributing_to_GCC_in_10_easy_steps Except for clang compatibility, I believe the consensus is that numerical levels are not user-friendly. I think it would be better to have: -Wnoreturn-implicit-return -Wnoreturn-explicit-return -Winvalid-noreturn enables / disables both.
