On Wed, Oct 8, 2025, 15:03 NightStrike <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2025, 14:53 Harald Anlauf <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Am 08.10.25 um 10:43 schrieb NightStrike:
>> > On Tue, Oct 7, 2025, 16:25 Jerry D <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 10/7/25 1:13 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>> >>> Dear All,
>> >>>
>> >>> the attached patch addresses a rather old (> 14 years) issue.
>> >>> We generated warnings for standard conforming code, where a symbol
>> >>> was given a bind(c) attribute and at the same time declared PRIVATE.
>> >>>
>> >>> I checked a bunch of compilers, and none gave warnings, except for
>> >>> NAG, which did warn, but only if the binding name were the same as
>> >>> the default name.
>> >>>
>> >>> I considered this to be a good solution, and decided to "hide" the
>> >>> warning behind -Wsurprising (contained in -Wall).
>> >>>
>> >>> What do others think?
>> >>>
>> >>> Attached has been regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.  OK for mainline?
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Harald
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I think your approach is very reasonable. It gets rid of noise that
>> users
>> >> do not
>> >> need, very OK by me.
>> >>
>> >> Jerry
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't think it gets rid of noise if it moves the warning to Wall. In
>> > fact, comment 3 in the bug report describes my exact use case, which
>> should
>> > never warn, and requiring zero warnings at Wall is a common and
>> encouraged
>> > project goal.
>>
>> Well, specifying -Wall -Wno-surprising will suppress the remaining
>> warning.
>>
>
> That's really not a good response here. You are requiring turning off an
> entire category of warnings because you want to put this invalid one in
> Wall. This is a bad change. Please revert it.
>

Once again, please revert this.

> This warning should either be smarter to disambiguate intended and good
>> > uses or moved to its own option that is not part of Wall or Wextra.
>>
>> Pushed as r16-4308-g50959e53e40ae0 .
>>
>
> What is the point of asking for feedback if you're going to ignore it
> without discussion?
>

Reply via email to