Am Montag, dem 02.06.2025 um 13:19 -0500 schrieb Segher Boessenkool:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 05:50:08PM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > According to the discussion in the bugzilla there seems to be
> > some consensus to activate the warning for -Wextra (I am also
> > looking into implementing the suggested improvements that may
> > make it suitable fo r-Wall). When making this change, I also
> > noticed that it was not working for -Wc++-compat due to a typo.
>
> Do you have any data showing that -Wextra is good for this warning
> (and that -Wall is not)? -Wall should have essentially no false
> positives, -Wextra is allowed to be a bit more annoying, but the
> requirements for the two are essentially the same, just the limit
> "this is *too* annoying" shifted a bit.
It would cause false positives, e.g. occasionally for the "goto fail"
idiom in C, so I think it is not acceptable for -Wall. I based
this also on the comments in the bug report.
>
> Why do this in -Wc++-compat at all? You don't say. Well, you say that
> is a bugfix, so it should be a separate (and trivial) patch.
It is a hard error in C++. It is also already documented as being
activated by -Wc++-compat.
I guess the trivial bug fix ("LangEnabledby -> LangEnabledBy")
could be a separate "obviously correct" patch if there is no consensus
to add the warning to -Wextra.
Finally, I missed a tiny fix to "libbacktrace/elf.c" where this warning
would trigger with -Wextra.
Martin
>
>
> Segher
