As discussed in c/69104, the -Winvalid-memory-model option is
not documented in the manual. The attached patch rectifies that.
Martin
gcc/ChangeLog:
2016-01-04 Martin Sebor <mse...@redhat.com>
* doc/invoke.texi (Warning Options): Document -Winvalid-memory-model.
Index: doc/invoke.texi
===================================================================
--- doc/invoke.texi (revision 232047)
+++ doc/invoke.texi (working copy)
@@ -263,7 +263,8 @@
-Wno-int-to-pointer-cast -Wno-invalid-offsetof @gol
-Winvalid-pch -Wlarger-than=@var{len} @gol
-Wlogical-op -Wlogical-not-parentheses -Wlong-long @gol
--Wmain -Wmaybe-uninitialized -Wmemset-transposed-args @gol
+-Wmain -Wmaybe-uninitialized -Winvalid-memory-model @gol
+-Wmemset-transposed-args @gol
-Wmisleading-indentation -Wmissing-braces @gol
-Wmissing-field-initializers -Wmissing-include-dirs @gol
-Wno-multichar -Wnonnull -Wnormalized=@r{[}none@r{|}id@r{|}nfc@r{|}nfkc@r{]} @gol
@@ -4305,6 +4306,26 @@
computations may be deleted by data flow analysis before the warnings
are printed.
+@item -Winvalid-memory-model
+@opindex Winvalid-memory-model
+@opindex Wno-invalid-memory-model
+Warn for invocations of @ref{__atomic Builtins}, @ref{__sync Builtins},
+and the C11 atomic generic functions with a memory consistency argument
+that is either invalid for the operation or outside the range of values
+of the @code{memory_order} enumeration. For example, since the
+@code{__atomic_store} and @code{__atomic_store_n} built-ins are only
+defined for the relaxed, relase, and sequentially consistent memory
+orders the following code is diagnosed:
+
+@smallexample
+void store (int *i)
+@{
+ __atomic_store_n (i, 0, memory_order_consume);
+@}
+@end smallexample
+
+@option{-Winvalid-memory-model} is enabled by default.
+
@item -Wmaybe-uninitialized
@opindex Wmaybe-uninitialized
@opindex Wno-maybe-uninitialized
