On 7/24/19 12:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > > I don't know what Jakub had in mind but the mapping I envision is > one like hash_map<tree, bitmap> that would make it possible to set > a bit for each distinct warning for every tree node. It would let > us set a bit for -Wuninitialized while leaving the bit for > -Warray-bounds (and all other warnings) clear. Ah, yes. I like that. I'm still worried about the linkage between the map and the GC system, but a <tree, bitmap> has a lot of potential.
> >> >> If the bit were on an SSA_NAME, or a _DECL node, then the flag bit is >> shared and would be a much larger concern. > > For shared objects the mapping would have to be more involved but > I haven't thought about it in any detail to have an idea what it > might look like. I suspect shared objects are just going to be painful. A solution which worked on EXPR nodes would still be a significant step forward. > > Anyway, if/when someone does come up with a solution for this we > will have to go through all the places where the no-warning bit > is set and replace them with whatever replacement we come up with. > One instance more or less won't make a difference. I just wanted > to point out that setting the bit is not a robust solution. Yea, but at least they're easy to find via the TREE_NO_WARNING flag. Hopefully we've got tests for most of the issues we're working around with that bit. jeff
