Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
It seems a little weird to me that clang defines __GNUC__, but I
assume there are good reasons for it.
The thing is that gcc is as much a language dialect these days as it
is a compiler implementation, and many other compilers, including
clang, explicitly try to
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 07:01:37PM +, John Keeping wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:24:49AM -0800, Jeff King wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 06:22:40PM +, John Keeping wrote:
Thanks for checking. I'd rather squelch the warning completely (as in my
re-post of Max's patch from a
Signed-off-by: Max Horn m...@quendi.de
---
cache.h | 2 +-
git-compat-util.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cache.h b/cache.h
index c257953..5c8440b 100644
--- a/cache.h
+++ b/cache.h
@@ -1148,7 +1148,7 @@ extern int
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 03:53:23PM +0100, Max Horn wrote:
-#ifdef __GNUC__
+#if defined(__GNUC__) ! defined(__clang__)
#define config_error_nonbool(s) (config_error_nonbool(s), -1)
#endif
You don't say what the warning is, but I'm guessing it's complaining
about throwing away the return
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 03:53:23PM +0100, Max Horn wrote:
-#ifdef __GNUC__
+#if defined(__GNUC__) ! defined(__clang__)
#define config_error_nonbool(s) (config_error_nonbool(s), -1)
#endif
You don't say what the warning is, but I'm guessing it's
FWIW, I also happen to have the warning:
advice.c:69:2: warning: expression result unused [-Wunused-value]
error('%s' is not possible because you have unmerged files., me);
^~
./git-compat-util.h:314:55: note:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 06:12:57PM +0100, Antoine Pelisse wrote:
FWIW, I also happen to have the warning:
advice.c:69:2: warning: expression result unused [-Wunused-value]
error('%s' is not possible because you have unmerged files., me);
On 16.01.2013, at 18:18, John Keeping wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 06:12:57PM +0100, Antoine Pelisse wrote:
FWIW, I also happen to have the warning:
advice.c:69:2: warning: expression result unused [-Wunused-value]
error('%s' is not possible because you have unmerged files., me);
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 06:26:35PM +0100, Max Horn wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 06:12:57PM +0100, Antoine Pelisse wrote:
FWIW, I also happen to have the warning:
advice.c:69:2: warning: expression result unused [-Wunused-value]
error('%s' is not possible because you have
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 09:50:57AM -0800, Jeff King wrote:
I'm confused, though, why your patch does not have a matching update to
the opterror macro in parse-options.h. It uses exactly the same
technique. Does it not generate a warning?
Ah, I think I see why not.
It is not about the macro
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:50:57 -0800, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
However, clang also defines __GNUC__, [...]
http://sourceforge.net/p/predef/wiki/Compilers/
Notice that the meaning of the __GNUC__ macro has changed subtly over the
years, from identifying the GNU C/C++ compiler to
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:00:42AM -0800, Jeff King wrote:
So opterror does not happen to generate any warnings, because we do not
ever use it in a void context. It should probably be marked the same
way, though, as future-proofing.
[...]
So a more accurate description would be:
Here it is
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:00:42AM -0800, Jeff King wrote:
It is not about the macro itself, but rather the callsites that do not
return error, but call it for its printing side effect. It seems that
clang -Wunused-value is OK with unused values from functions being
discarded, but not with
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
It seems a little weird to me that clang defines __GNUC__, but I
assume there are good reasons for it.
The reason is essentially that clang targets compatibility with GCC
(implementing the same extensions cie), in the sense drop in
replacement that should be
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 06:12:03PM +, John Keeping wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:00:42AM -0800, Jeff King wrote:
It is not about the macro itself, but rather the callsites that do not
return error, but call it for its printing side effect. It seems that
clang -Wunused-value is OK
Is it worth applying this at all, then? Or should we apply it but limit
it with a clang version macro (they mention r163034, but I do not know
if it is in a released version yet, nor what macros are available to
inspect the version)?
Please also note that building with clang is not
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:15:58AM -0800, Jeff King wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 06:12:03PM +, John Keeping wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:00:42AM -0800, Jeff King wrote:
It is not about the macro itself, but rather the callsites that do not
return error, but call it for its
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:24:49AM -0800, Jeff King wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 06:22:40PM +, John Keeping wrote:
[1] http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13747
Yeah, I think it is exactly the same issue, and the fix they mention
there would apply to us, too.
Is it
18 matches
Mail list logo
