On Mon, 2015-12-21 at 22:20 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 02:10:17PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 12/18/2015 01:21 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > > > >I don't think there's a way to fix -Wmisleading-indentation if we're > > >in this state, so the first part of the following patch detects if > > >this has happened, and effectively turns off -Wmisleading-indentation > > >from that point onwards. To avoid a false sense of security, the > > >patch issues a "sorry" at the that point, currently with this wording: > > >location-overflow-test-1.c:17:0: sorry, unimplemented: > > >-Wmisleading-indentation is disabled from this point onwards, since > > >column-tracking was disabled due to the size of the code/headers > > Seems reasonable. I can't see any way to get indentation warnings if we > > don't have column info. > > sorry will set sorrycount to non-zero though, so seen_error () will be true > and the compiler will exit with non-zero exit status. That is IMHO not > appripriate for warning (at least unless -Werror=misleading-indentation).
Some possibilities here: (A, the patch): issue a "sorry" to indicate that the warning isn't available anymore, leading to a nonzero exit status (B) silently disable the warning (C) issue a "warning" about the impaired warning, using OPT_Wmisleading_indentation, so that it becomes an error if -Werror=misleading-indentation. (D) something else? Do you have a preference as to what approach I should try? I think I like option (C) above. Dave
