We just had a patch a month or so ago (r231022) to sort this table into
something approaching alphabetical order, module no- prefixes, I guess.
Can you please insert the new entry into a less random place?
Sure. It was meant to be inserted in the right place, my brain
just filtered out the "invalid" part in the name of the option.
Fixed in the updated patch.
@@ -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
s/built-ins/builtins/ (like in the @refs you used previously)
I thought the @refs were an inconsistency and built-in was
the preferred spelling. That's what someone else pointed
out to me sometime ago and what I see documented in the GCC
Coding Conventions (and what I also noticed used elsewhere
in this section of the manual).
But looking more closely, there are quite a few uses of both
builtins and built-ins, on this manual page as well as on
others. Which makes me wonder which of the two is prevalent.
I count 68 occurrences of the words builtin and builtins in
the manual (separated by space and ignoring capitalization)
and 481 occurrences of the words built-in and built-ins.
I also count 50 occurrences of built-in in the gcc.pot file
and 33 occurrences of builtin.
This seems to confirm my understanding of the recommended
convention (though it also shows how inconsistently it is
being followed). Please let me know if I missed something.
+defined for the relaxed, relase, and sequentially consistent memory
s/relase/release/
Fixed, thanks.
I will go ahead and commit this version of the patch tomorrow
unless you have objections.
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)
@@ -260,7 +260,7 @@
-Wignored-qualifiers -Wincompatible-pointer-types @gol
-Wimplicit -Wimplicit-function-declaration -Wimplicit-int @gol
-Winit-self -Winline -Wno-int-conversion @gol
--Wno-int-to-pointer-cast -Wno-invalid-offsetof @gol
+-Wno-int-to-pointer-cast -Winvalid-memory-model -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
@@ -4305,6 +4305,26 @@
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, release, 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
